The Experts below are selected from a list of 245706 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Annewil Harzing - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
two new kids on the block how do crossref and dimensions compare with google scholar microsoft academic scopus and the Web of Science
Scientometrics, 2019Co-Authors: Annewil HarzingAbstract:In the last 3 years, several new (free) sources for academic publication and citation data have joined the now well-established Google Scholar, complementing the two traditional commercial data sources: Scopus and the Web of Science. The most important of these new data sources are Microsoft Academic (2016), Crossref (2017) and Dimensions (2018). Whereas Microsoft Academic has received some attention from the bibliometric community, there are as yet very few studies that have investigated the coverage of Crossref or Dimensions. To address this gap, this brief letter assesses Crossref and Dimensions coverage in comparison to Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science through a detailed investigation of the full publication and citation record of a single academic, as well as six top journals in Business & Economics. Overall, this first small-scale study suggests that, when compared to Scopus and the Web of Science, Crossref and Dimensions have a similar or better coverage for both publications and citations, but a substantively lower coverage than Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic. If our findings can be confirmed by larger-scale studies, Crossref and Dimensions might serve as good alternatives to Scopus and the Web of Science for both literature reviews and citation analysis. However, Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic maintain their position as the most comprehensive free sources for publication and citation data.
-
google scholar scopus and the Web of Science a longitudinal and cross disciplinary comparison
Scientometrics, 2016Co-Authors: Annewil Harzing, Satu AlakangasAbstract:This article aims to provide a systematic and comprehensive comparison of the coverage of the three major bibliometric databases: Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science. Based on a sample of 146 senior academics in five broad disciplinary areas, we therefore provide both a longitudinal and a cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases. Our longitudinal comparison of eight data points between 2013 and 2015 shows a consistent and reasonably stable quarterly growth for both publications and citations across the three databases. This suggests that all three databases provide sufficient stability of coverage to be used for more detailed cross-disciplinary comparisons. Our cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases includes four key research metrics (publications, citations, h-index, and hI, annual, an annualised individual h-index) and five major disciplines (Humanities, Social Sciences, Engineering, Sciences and Life Sciences). We show that both the data source and the specific metrics used change the conclusions that can be drawn from cross-disciplinary comparisons.
Ludo Waltman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
large scale comparison of bibliographic data sources scopus Web of Science dimensions crossref and microsoft academic
Quantitative Science Studies, 2021Co-Authors: Martijn S Visser, Nees Jan Van Eck, Ludo WaltmanAbstract:We present a large-scale comparison of five multidisciplinary bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. The comparison considers scientific d...
-
large scale comparison of bibliographic data sources scopus Web of Science dimensions crossref and microsoft academic
arXiv: Digital Libraries, 2020Co-Authors: Martijn S Visser, Nees Jan Van Eck, Ludo WaltmanAbstract:We present a large-scale comparison of five multidisciplinary bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. The comparison considers all scientific documents from the period 2008-2017 covered by these data sources. Scopus is compared in a pairwise manner with each of the other data sources. We first analyze differences between the data sources in the coverage of documents, focusing for instance on differences over time, differences per document type, and differences per discipline. We then study differences in the completeness and accuracy of citation links. Based on our analysis, we discuss strengths and weaknesses of the different data sources. We emphasize the importance of combining a comprehensive coverage of the scientific literature with a flexible set of filters for making selections of the literature.
-
accuracy of citation data in Web of Science and scopus
ISSI, 2019Co-Authors: Nees Jan Van Eck, Ludo WaltmanAbstract:We present a large-scale analysis of the accuracy of citation data in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The analysis is based on citations given in publications in Elsevier journals. We reveal significant data quality problems for both databases. Missing and incorrect references are important problems in Web of Science. Duplicate publications are a serious problem in Scopus.
-
large scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and scopus
arXiv: Digital Libraries, 2015Co-Authors: Qi Wang, Ludo WaltmanAbstract:Journal classification systems play an important role in bibliometric analyses. The two most important bibliographic databases, Web of Science and Scopus, each provide a journal classification system. However, no study has systematically investigated the accuracy of these classification systems. To examine and compare the accuracy of journal classification systems, we define two criteria on the basis of direct citation relations between journals and categories. We use Criterion I to select journals that have weak connections with their assigned categories, and we use Criterion II to identify journals that are not assigned to categories with which they have strong connections. If a journal satisfies either of the two criteria, we conclude that its assignment to categories may be questionable. Accordingly, we identify all journals with questionable classifications in Web of Science and Scopus. Furthermore, we perform a more in-depth analysis for the field of Library and Information Science to assess whether our proposed criteria are appropriate and whether they yield meaningful results. It turns out that according to our citation-based criteria Web of Science performs significantly better than Scopus in terms of the accuracy of its journal classification system.
Vincent Lariviere - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the role of Web of Science publications in china s tenure system
Scientometrics, 2020Co-Authors: Cassidy R Sugimoto, Vincent Lariviere, Fei Shu, Wei Quan, Bikun Chen, Junping QiuAbstract:Tenure provides a permanent position to faculty in higher education institutions. In North America, it is granted to those who have established a record of excellence in research, teaching and services in a limited period. However, in China, research excellence (represented by the number of Web of Science publications) is highly weighted in the tenure assessment compared to excellence in teaching and services, but this has never been systematically investigated. By analyzing the tenure assessment documents from Chinese Universities, this study reveals the role of Web of Science publications in China’s tenure system and presents the landscape of the tenure assessment process in Chinese higher education institutions.
-
does the Web of Science accurately represent chinese scientific performance
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2019Co-Authors: Fei Shu, Charlesantoine Julien, Vincent LariviereAbstract:The purpose of this study is to compare Web of Science (WoS) with a Chinese bibliometric database in terms of authors and their performance, demonstrate the extent of the overlap between the two groups of Chinese most productive authors in both international and Chinese bibliometric databases, and determine how different disciplines may affect this overlap. The results of this study indicate that Chinese bibliometric databases, or a combination of WoS and Chinese bibliometric databases, should be used to evaluate Chinese research performance except in few disciplines in which Chinese research performance could be assessed using WoS only.
-
comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and scopus
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2009Co-Authors: Eric Archambault, David Campbell, Yves Gingras, Vincent LariviereAbstract:For more than 40 years, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now part of Thomson Reuters) produced the only available bibliographic databases from which bibliometricians could compile large-scale bibliometric indicators. ISI's citation indexes, now regrouped under the Web of Science (WoS), were the major sources of bibliometric data until 2004, when Scopus was launched by the publisher Reed Elsevier. For those who perform bibliometric analyses and comparisons of countries or institutions, the existence of these two major databases raises the important question of the comparability and stability of statistics obtained from different data sources. This paper uses macrolevel bibliometric indicators to compare results obtained from the WoS and Scopus. It shows that the correlations between the measures obtained with both databases for the number of papers and the number of citations received by countries, as well as for their ranks, are extremely high (R2 a .99). There is also a very high correlation when countries' papers are broken down by field. The paper thus provides evidence that indicators of scientific production and citations at the country level are stable and largely independent of the database. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
-
comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and scopus
arXiv: Information Retrieval, 2009Co-Authors: Eric Archambault, David Campbell, Yves Gingras, Vincent LariviereAbstract:For more than 40 years, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now part of Thomson Reuters) produced the only available bibliographic databases from which bibliometricians could compile large-scale bibliometric indicators. ISI's citation indexes, now regrouped under the Web of Science (WoS), were the major sources of bibliometric data until 2004, when Scopus was launched by the publisher Reed Elsevier. For those who perform bibliometric analyses and comparisons of countries or institutions, the existence of these two major databases raises the important question of the comparability and stability of statistics obtained from different data sources. This paper uses macro-level bibliometric indicators to compare results obtained from the WoS and Scopus. It shows that the correlations between the measures obtained with both databases for the number of papers and the number of citations received by countries, as well as for their ranks, are extremely high (R2 > .99). There is also a very high correlation when countries' papers are broken down by field. The paper thus provides evidence that indicators of scientific production and citations at the country level are stable and largely independent of the database.
Lutz Bornmann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
disruption indices and their calculation using Web of Science data indicators of historical developments or evolutionary dynamics
Journal of Informetrics, 2021Co-Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Lutz BornmannAbstract:Abstract Science and technology develop not only along historical trajectories, but also as next-order regimes that periodically change the landscape. Regimes can incur on trajectories which are then disrupted. Using citations and references for the operationalization, we discuss and quantify both the recently proposed “disruption indicator” and the older indicator for “critical transitions” among reference lists as changes which may necessitate a rewriting of history. We elaborate this with three examples in order to provide a proof of concept. We shall show how the indicators can be calculated using Web-of-Science data. The routine is automated (available at http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/di/index.htm >) so that it can be upscaled in future research. We suggest that “critical transitions” can be used to indicate disruption at the regime level, whereas disruption is developed at the trajectory level. Both conceptually and empirically, however, continuity is grasped more easily than disruption.
-
disruption indices and their calculation using Web of Science data indicators of historical developments or evolutionary dynamics
Social Science Research Network, 2021Co-Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Lutz BornmannAbstract:Science and technology develop not only along historical trajectories, but also as next-order regimes that periodically change the landscape. Regimes can incur on trajectories which are then disrupted. Using citations and references for the operationalization, we discuss and quantify both the recently proposed “disruption indicator” and the older indicator for “critical transitions” among reference lists as changes which may necessitate a rewriting of history. We elaborate this with three examples in order to provide a proof of concept. We shall show how the indicators can be calculated using Web-of-Science data. The calculation is automated so that it can be upscaled in future research. We suggest that “critical transitions” can be used to indicate disruption at the regime level, whereas disruption is developed at the trajectory level. Both conceptually and empirically, however, continuity is grasped more easily than disruption.
-
the number of linked references of publications in microsoft academic in comparison with the Web of Science
Scientometrics, 2018Co-Authors: Robin Haunschild, Sven E Hug, Martin P Brandle, Lutz BornmannAbstract:In the context of a comprehensive Microsoft Academic (MA) study, we explored in an initial step the quality of linked references data in MA in comparison with Web of Science (WoS). Linked references are the backbone of bibliometrics, because they are the basis of the times cited information in citation indexes. We found that the concordance of linked references between MA and WoS ranges from weak to nonexistent for the full sample (publications of the University of Zurich with less than 50 linked references in MA). An analysis with a sample restricted to less than 50 linked references in WoS showed a strong agreement between linked references in MA and WoS.
-
how many scientific papers are mentioned in policy related documents an empirical investigation using Web of Science and altmetric data
arXiv: Digital Libraries, 2016Co-Authors: Robin Haunschild, Lutz BornmannAbstract:In this short communication, we provide an overview of a relatively newly provided source of altmetrics data which could possibly be used for societal impact measurements in scientometrics. Recently, Altmetric - a start-up providing publication level metrics - started to make data for publications available which have been mentioned in policy-related documents. Using data from Altmetric, we study how many papers indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) are mentioned in policy-related documents. We find that less than 0.5% of the papers published in different subject categories are mentioned at least once in policy-related documents. Based on our results, we recommend that the analysis of (WoS) publications with at least one policy-related mention is repeated regularly (annually). Mentions in policy-related documents should not be used for impact measurement until new policy-related sites are tracked.
-
the generation of large networks from Web of Science data
Profesional De La Informacion, 2014Co-Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Gohar Feroz Khan, Lutz BornmannAbstract:During the 1990s, one of us developed a series of freeware routines ( http://www.leydesdorff.net/indicators ) that enable the user to organize downloads from the Web of Science ( Thomson Reuters ) into a relational database, and then to export matrices for further analysis in various formats (for example, for co-author analysis). The basic format of the matrices displays each document as a case in a row that can be attributed different variables in the columns. One limitation to this approach was hitherto that relational databases typically have an upper limit for the number of variables, such as 256 or 1024. In this brief communication we report on a way to circumvent this limitation by using txt2Pajek.exe , available as freeware from http://www.pfeffer.at/txt2pajek
Harald Dyckhoff - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
coverage of business administration literature in google scholar analysis and comparison with econbiz scopus and Web of Science
Bibliometrie - Praxis und Forschung, 2013Co-Authors: Marcel Clermont, Harald DyckhoffAbstract:Google Scholar is used for literature research as well as for evaluations of research performance. To establish Google Scholar’s functional compliance, we generate a heuristic method and apply it to business relevant journals, namely those ascertained and rated in the German business journal rank- ing VHB-JOURQUAL2 by Schrader/Hennig-Thurau (2009). It is shown that Google Scholar primarily indexes international, i.e. English-language journals with a high rating grade; national language, here German-language literature, is hardly covered systematically. Furthermore, we compare these results with the business journal content of the German database EconBiz and the international databases Web of Science and Scopus. While Google Scholar is definitely competitive with Web of Science and Scopus for English-language literature, German-language literature is systematically covered by EconBiz, only. The comparison is additionally done for special business research fields. With regard to the journal coverage of some of these research areas, it becomes evident that the national database EconBiz even dominates the databases Scopus and Web of Science. Recommended citation: Clermont, M. & Dyckhoff, H. (2012), Coverage of Business Administration Literature in Google Scholar: Analysis and Comparison with EconBiz, Scopus and Web of Science. Bibliometrie - Praxis und Forschung 1, 5. URN:urn:nbn:de:bvb:355-bpf-165-5.
-
coverage of business administration literature in google scholar analysis and comparison with econbiz scopus and Web of Science
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Marcel Clermont, Harald DyckhoffAbstract:Google Scholar is used for literature research as well as for evaluations of research performance. To establish Google Scholar’s functional compliance we generate a heuristic method and apply it to business relevant journals, namely those ascertained and rated in VHB-JOURQUAL2 by Schrader/Hennig-Thurau (2009). This is done separately both for single rating categories and for special business research fields. It is shown that Google Scholar primarily indexes international, i.e. English-language journals with a high JOURQUAL rating; German-language literature is hardly covered systematically. In addition, we compare these results with the business journal content of EconBiz, Scopus and Web of Science. While Google Scholar is definitely competitive with Web of Science and Scopus for English-language literature, German-language literature is systematically covered by EconBiz, only. With regard to the journal coverage of some research areas, it becomes evident that EconBiz even dominates the databases Scopus and Web of Science.A shortened version of this paper with other figures is published in Bibliometrie - Praxis und Theorie.
