《欧洲科学编辑》上发表文章的Dimensions和Scopus引文覆盖率

Q2 Social Sciences

European Science Editing Pub Date : 2023-07-31 DOI:10.3897/ese.2023.e102691

L. Ansorge

{"title":"《欧洲科学编辑》上发表文章的Dimensions和Scopus引文覆盖率","authors":"L. Ansorge","doi":"10.3897/ese.2023.e102691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The two main bibliometric databases, namely Web of Science and Scopus, are not available for free, whereas the Dimensions is one of the new freely available bibliometric databases and is considered to be an alternative to Scopus in particular.\n Objectives: To compare the information on citations to articles published in European Science Editing as available in the Dimensions to that available in Scopus.\n Methods: Information on articles published in European Science Editing that were cited in sources published between 2020 and 2022 was analysed to compare the relevant data as given by Dimensions and Scopus.\n Results: Both databases were similar in terms of the number of cited articles, the number of citing articles, and the number of citations. Of the total of 35 cited articles, 3 were unique to each of the 2 databases. Of the total of 93 citing articles, 74 were found in Scopus and 75 in the Dimensions.\n Conclusions: Scopus and Dimensions shared an overlap of 84% in articles cited but of only 60% in the citing articles. Information on individual citing articles strongly suggests that Dimensions takes data on citing articles from CrossRef. Unfortunately, these metadata contain errors. Data on citations in the Dimension database could be made more accurate if the references appended to the citing articles listed in the Crossref database were under an open license.","PeriodicalId":35360,"journal":{"name":"European Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Citation coverage by Dimensions and Scopus of articles published in European Science Editing\",\"authors\":\"L. Ansorge\",\"doi\":\"10.3897/ese.2023.e102691\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The two main bibliometric databases, namely Web of Science and Scopus, are not available for free, whereas the Dimensions is one of the new freely available bibliometric databases and is considered to be an alternative to Scopus in particular.\\n Objectives: To compare the information on citations to articles published in European Science Editing as available in the Dimensions to that available in Scopus.\\n Methods: Information on articles published in European Science Editing that were cited in sources published between 2020 and 2022 was analysed to compare the relevant data as given by Dimensions and Scopus.\\n Results: Both databases were similar in terms of the number of cited articles, the number of citing articles, and the number of citations. Of the total of 35 cited articles, 3 were unique to each of the 2 databases. Of the total of 93 citing articles, 74 were found in Scopus and 75 in the Dimensions.\\n Conclusions: Scopus and Dimensions shared an overlap of 84% in articles cited but of only 60% in the citing articles. Information on individual citing articles strongly suggests that Dimensions takes data on citing articles from CrossRef. Unfortunately, these metadata contain errors. Data on citations in the Dimension database could be made more accurate if the references appended to the citing articles listed in the Crossref database were under an open license.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35360,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Science Editing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Science Editing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e102691\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Science Editing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e102691","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

背景：两个主要的文献计量数据库，即Web of Science和Scopus，不是免费的，而Dimensions是新的免费文献计量数据库之一，尤其被认为是Scopus的替代品。目的：比较《维度》和《Scopus》中发表在《欧洲科学编辑》上的文章的引文信息。方法：分析2020年至2022年间发表的来源中引用的《欧洲科学编辑》上发表的文章信息，以比较Dimensions和Scopus提供的相关数据。结果：两个数据库在被引用文章的数量、被引用文章数量和被引用次数方面相似。在总共35篇被引用的文章中，有3篇是2个数据库各自独有的。在总共93篇引用文章中，Scopus中有74篇，Dimensions中有75篇。结论：Scopus和Dimensions在被引用的文章中有84%的重叠，但在被引用文章中只有60%的重叠。个人引用文章的信息强烈表明，Dimensions从CrossRef获取引用文章的数据。不幸的是，这些元数据包含错误。如果Crossref数据库中列出的引用文章所附的引用文献是在开放许可证下的，那么Dimension数据库中的引用数据可以更加准确。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Citation coverage by Dimensions and Scopus of articles published in European Science Editing

Background: The two main bibliometric databases, namely Web of Science and Scopus, are not available for free, whereas the Dimensions is one of the new freely available bibliometric databases and is considered to be an alternative to Scopus in particular. Objectives: To compare the information on citations to articles published in European Science Editing as available in the Dimensions to that available in Scopus. Methods: Information on articles published in European Science Editing that were cited in sources published between 2020 and 2022 was analysed to compare the relevant data as given by Dimensions and Scopus. Results: Both databases were similar in terms of the number of cited articles, the number of citing articles, and the number of citations. Of the total of 35 cited articles, 3 were unique to each of the 2 databases. Of the total of 93 citing articles, 74 were found in Scopus and 75 in the Dimensions. Conclusions: Scopus and Dimensions shared an overlap of 84% in articles cited but of only 60% in the citing articles. Information on individual citing articles strongly suggests that Dimensions takes data on citing articles from CrossRef. Unfortunately, these metadata contain errors. Data on citations in the Dimension database could be made more accurate if the references appended to the citing articles listed in the Crossref database were under an open license.

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

European Science Editing Social Sciences-Communication

CiteScore

1.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： EASE"s journal, European Science Editing , publishes articles, reports meetings, announces new developments and forthcoming events, reviews books, software and online resources, and highlights publications of interest to members.