评估4个多学科来源的撤稿索引一致性:Crossref、retraction Watch、Scopus和Web of Science

Jodi Schneider, Jounghyoun Lee, Heng Zheng, Malik Oyewale Salami
{"title":"评估4个多学科来源的撤稿索引一致性:Crossref、retraction Watch、Scopus和Web of Science","authors":"Jodi Schneider, Jounghyoun Lee, Heng Zheng, Malik Oyewale Salami","doi":"10.55835/6441e5cae04dbe5586d06a5f","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous research has posited a correlation between poor indexing and inadvertent post-retraction citation. However, to date, there has been limited systematic study of retraction indexing quality: we are aware of one database-wide comparison of PubMed and Web of Science, and multiple smaller studies highlighting indexing problems for items with the same reason for retraction or same field of study. To assess the agreement between multidisciplinary retraction indexes, we create a union list of 49,924 publications with DOIs from the retraction indices of at least one of Crossref, Retraction Watch, Scopus, and Web of Science. Only 1593 (3%) are deemed retracted by the intersection of all four sources. For 14,743 publications (almost 30%), there is disagreement: at least one source deems them retracted while another lacks retraction indexing. Of the items deemed retracted by at least one source, retraction indexing was lacking for 32% covered in Scopus, 7% covered in Crossref, and 4% covered in Web of Science. We manually examined 201 items from the union list and found that 115/201 (57.21%) DOIs were retracted publications while 59 (29.35%) were retraction notices. In future work we plan to use a validated version of this union list to assess the retraction indexing of subject-specific sources.","PeriodicalId":334841,"journal":{"name":"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the agreement in retraction indexing across 4 multidisciplinary sources: Crossref, Retraction Watch, Scopus, and Web of Science\",\"authors\":\"Jodi Schneider, Jounghyoun Lee, Heng Zheng, Malik Oyewale Salami\",\"doi\":\"10.55835/6441e5cae04dbe5586d06a5f\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Previous research has posited a correlation between poor indexing and inadvertent post-retraction citation. However, to date, there has been limited systematic study of retraction indexing quality: we are aware of one database-wide comparison of PubMed and Web of Science, and multiple smaller studies highlighting indexing problems for items with the same reason for retraction or same field of study. To assess the agreement between multidisciplinary retraction indexes, we create a union list of 49,924 publications with DOIs from the retraction indices of at least one of Crossref, Retraction Watch, Scopus, and Web of Science. Only 1593 (3%) are deemed retracted by the intersection of all four sources. For 14,743 publications (almost 30%), there is disagreement: at least one source deems them retracted while another lacks retraction indexing. Of the items deemed retracted by at least one source, retraction indexing was lacking for 32% covered in Scopus, 7% covered in Crossref, and 4% covered in Web of Science. We manually examined 201 items from the union list and found that 115/201 (57.21%) DOIs were retracted publications while 59 (29.35%) were retraction notices. In future work we plan to use a validated version of this union list to assess the retraction indexing of subject-specific sources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":334841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55835/6441e5cae04dbe5586d06a5f\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55835/6441e5cae04dbe5586d06a5f","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前的研究已经提出了索引不良与撤稿后无意引用之间的相关性。然而,到目前为止,关于撤稿索引质量的系统研究还很有限:我们知道有一个数据库范围内的PubMed和Web of Science的比较,以及多个较小的研究,突出了相同撤稿原因或相同研究领域的文章的索引问题。为了评估多学科撤稿索引之间的一致性,我们创建了一个包含49924篇出版物的联合列表,这些出版物的doi来自Crossref、retraction Watch、Scopus和Web of Science的至少一个撤稿索引。只有1593篇(3%)被认为是四个来源的交集。对于14743篇出版物(近30%),存在分歧:至少有一个来源认为它们被撤回,而另一个没有撤回索引。在被至少一个来源认为撤回的文献中,Scopus中有32%的文献缺乏撤回索引,Crossref中有7%,Web Of Science中有4%。我们对联合列表中的201个条目进行人工检索,发现115/201篇(57.21%)doi为撤稿,59篇(29.35%)为撤稿通知。在未来的工作中,我们计划使用这个联合列表的验证版本来评估特定主题来源的撤稿索引。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the agreement in retraction indexing across 4 multidisciplinary sources: Crossref, Retraction Watch, Scopus, and Web of Science
Previous research has posited a correlation between poor indexing and inadvertent post-retraction citation. However, to date, there has been limited systematic study of retraction indexing quality: we are aware of one database-wide comparison of PubMed and Web of Science, and multiple smaller studies highlighting indexing problems for items with the same reason for retraction or same field of study. To assess the agreement between multidisciplinary retraction indexes, we create a union list of 49,924 publications with DOIs from the retraction indices of at least one of Crossref, Retraction Watch, Scopus, and Web of Science. Only 1593 (3%) are deemed retracted by the intersection of all four sources. For 14,743 publications (almost 30%), there is disagreement: at least one source deems them retracted while another lacks retraction indexing. Of the items deemed retracted by at least one source, retraction indexing was lacking for 32% covered in Scopus, 7% covered in Crossref, and 4% covered in Web of Science. We manually examined 201 items from the union list and found that 115/201 (57.21%) DOIs were retracted publications while 59 (29.35%) were retraction notices. In future work we plan to use a validated version of this union list to assess the retraction indexing of subject-specific sources.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信