With the rise of Wikipedia as a first‐stop source for scientific information, it is important to understand whether Wikipedia draws upon the research that scientists value most. Here we identify the 250 most heavily used journals in each of 26 research fields (4,721 journals, 19.4M articles) indexed by the Scopus database, and test whether topic, academic status, and accessibility make articles from these journals more or less likely to be referenced on Wikipedia. We find that a journal's academic status (impact factor) and accessibility (open access policy) both strongly increase the probability of it being referenced on Wikipedia. Controlling for field and impact factor, the odds that an open access journal is referenced on the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to paywall journals. These findings provide evidence is that a major consequence of open access policies is to significantly amplify the diffusion of science, through an intermediary like Wikipedia, to a broad audience.

We present a structure-aware code editor, called Deuce, that is equipped with direct manipulation capabilities for invoking automated program transformations. Compared to traditional refactoring environments, Deuce employs a direct manipulation interface that is tightly integrated within a text-based editing workflow. In particular, Deuce draws (i) clickable widgets atop the source code that allow the user to structurally select the unstructured text for subexpressions and other relevant features, and (ii) a lightweight, interactive menu of potential transformations based on the current selections. We implement and evaluate our design with mostly standard transformations in the context of a small functional programming language. A controlled user study with 21 participants demonstrates that structural selection is preferred to a more traditional text-selection interface and may be faster overall once users gain experience with the tool. These results accord with Deuce's aim to provide human-friendly structural interactions on top of familiar text-based editing. CCS CONCEPTS • Software and its engineering → Integrated and visual development environments; • Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction (HCI);

This paper compares the scientific literature used most often by scientists to the scientific literature referenced on the English-language Wikipedia. Previous studies have raised concerns that editors of science-related articles on Wikipedia are biased toward easily available sources and underrepresent particular scientific fields. Most often, these studies examine references on Wikipedia only but make claims about how well or poorly Wikipedia represents the scientific literature as a whole. In contrast, the present study begins with the scientific literature. We use the Scopus database to identify the 250 most heavily used journals in each of 26 research fields (4620 journals in total), and estimate a variety of models to identify what makes these journals more or less likely to be cited on Wikipedia. We find that, controlling for impact factor and open access policy, Wikipedia over-represents journals from the Social Sciences, and under-represents journals from the Physical Sciences and Health Sciences. An open-access policy is not associated with increased Wikipedia presence. The most significant predictor that a journal will be cited on Wikipedia is its impact factor.