Web of Science与Scopus的文献类型分类:异同及其在出版活动分析中的价值

Yuliya Mokhnacheva
{"title":"Web of Science与Scopus的文献类型分类:异同及其在出版活动分析中的价值","authors":"Yuliya Mokhnacheva","doi":"10.19181/smtp.2022.4.3.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article presents comparative data concerning the types of the same publications in two of the world’s leading scientific information systems – Web of Science and Scopus – and publishers. The paper shows significant differences in the typification of documents in a sample of 4338 most actively cited works with Russian authorship of various types for the period 2010-2020. The article shows that the type of publication is not an obvious criterion: the same work can be assigned a different type depending on the source of information. The revealed discrepancies of information from various sources give grounds for a certain skepticism in the correctness of the formulation of tasks in the analysis of publication activity concerningthe accounting of publications of only certain types. The results of the study suggest that if it is necessary to take into account only certain types of publications, information about the types of documents should be verified with the original information from publishers.","PeriodicalId":433804,"journal":{"name":"Science Management: Theory and Practice","volume":"186 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Classification of Publications by Document Types in Web of Science and Scopus: Similarities, Differences and their Value in the Analysis of Publication Activity\",\"authors\":\"Yuliya Mokhnacheva\",\"doi\":\"10.19181/smtp.2022.4.3.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article presents comparative data concerning the types of the same publications in two of the world’s leading scientific information systems – Web of Science and Scopus – and publishers. The paper shows significant differences in the typification of documents in a sample of 4338 most actively cited works with Russian authorship of various types for the period 2010-2020. The article shows that the type of publication is not an obvious criterion: the same work can be assigned a different type depending on the source of information. The revealed discrepancies of information from various sources give grounds for a certain skepticism in the correctness of the formulation of tasks in the analysis of publication activity concerningthe accounting of publications of only certain types. The results of the study suggest that if it is necessary to take into account only certain types of publications, information about the types of documents should be verified with the original information from publishers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":433804,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science Management: Theory and Practice\",\"volume\":\"186 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science Management: Theory and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2022.4.3.11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Management: Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2022.4.3.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

这篇文章提供了在两个世界领先的科学信息系统(Web of Science和Scopus)和出版商中关于相同出版物类型的比较数据。该论文显示,在2010-2020年期间,4338篇最常被引用的俄罗斯作者的各种类型的作品样本中,文献的类型化存在显著差异。文章表明,出版类型并不是一个明显的标准,同一作品可以根据不同的信息来源被赋予不同的类型。从各种来源得到的资料显示出的差异,使人有理由怀疑在分析出版活动时所制订的任务是否正确,因为这些活动只涉及某些类型的出版物的核算。这项研究的结果表明,如果有必要只考虑到某些类型的出版物,关于文件类型的资料应与出版商提供的原始资料核实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Classification of Publications by Document Types in Web of Science and Scopus: Similarities, Differences and their Value in the Analysis of Publication Activity
The article presents comparative data concerning the types of the same publications in two of the world’s leading scientific information systems – Web of Science and Scopus – and publishers. The paper shows significant differences in the typification of documents in a sample of 4338 most actively cited works with Russian authorship of various types for the period 2010-2020. The article shows that the type of publication is not an obvious criterion: the same work can be assigned a different type depending on the source of information. The revealed discrepancies of information from various sources give grounds for a certain skepticism in the correctness of the formulation of tasks in the analysis of publication activity concerningthe accounting of publications of only certain types. The results of the study suggest that if it is necessary to take into account only certain types of publications, information about the types of documents should be verified with the original information from publishers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信