Центральная Научная Библиотека УрО РАН

Инвентарный номер: нет.


    Thelwall, M.
    Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science? / M. Thelwall // Journal of Informetrics. - 2018. - Vol. 12, № 2. - P. 430-435
Кл.слова (ненормированные):
DIMENSIONS -- SCOPUS -- WEB OF SCIENCE -- CITATION ANALYSIS -- CITATION INDEXING
Аннотация: Dimensions is a partly free scholarly database launched by Digital Science in January 2018. Dimensions includes journal articles and citation counts, making it a potential new source of impact data. This article explores the value of Dimensions from an impact assessment perspective with an examination of Food Science research 2008–2018 and a random sample of 10,000 Scopus articles from 2012. The results include high correlations between citation counts from Scopus and Dimensions (0.96 by narrow field in 2012) as well as similar average counts. Almost all Scopus articles with DOIs were found in Dimensions (97% in 2012). Thus, the scholarly database component of Dimensions seems to be a plausible alternative to Scopus and the Web of Science for general citation analyses and for citation data in support of some types of research evaluations.

Найти похожие

Инвентарный номер: нет.


    Harzing, A. -W.
    How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science? / A.-W. Harzing // Scientometrics. - 2019. - Vol. 120, № 1. - P. 341-349.
Кл.слова (ненормированные):
ACADEMIC PUBLICATION -- DIMENSIONS -- CROSSREF -- SCIENTOMETRICS
Аннотация: 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.

Найти похожие

Инвентарный номер: нет.


    Selivanova, I. V.
    The Impact of Errors in the Sсopus Database on the Research Assessment / I. V. Selivanova, D. V. Kosyakov, A. E. Guskov // Scientific and Technical Information Processing. - 2019. - Vol. 46, № 3. - P. 204-212
Кл.слова (ненормированные):
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASES -- SCOPUS -- SCIENTOMETRICS -- IDENTIFICATION -- BIBLIOMETRICS -- BIBLIOGRAPHIC ERRORS -- ORCID
Аннотация: This paper presents the results of the analysis of the causes for duplicate profiles in the Scopus database on the basis of a random sampling of profiles of 400 Russian authors and 400 organizations. We estimate the number of duplicate profiles and calculate the level of uncertainty that errors in bibliographic descriptions can contribute to the results of scientometric studies using the Scopus database. The analysis showed that in Scopus 76% of the organizations and 24% of the authors have duplicate profiles. In this regard, organizations lose an average of 17% of publications and authors lose 11%. The results of this study can be used in elaboration of the Scopus database and estimating the error level in the research assessment of institutions and individuals.

Найти похожие

Описание базы данных

Сиглы отделов ЦНБ УрО РАН

  бр.ф. - Бронированный фонд

  бф - Научно-библиографический отдел

  БХЛ - Фонд художественной литературы

  ИИиА -Фонд исторической литературы в ЦНБ УрО РАН

  ИМЕТ -Отдел ЦНБ в Институте металлургии УрО РАН

  кх - Отдел фондов (книгохранениe)

  МБА - Межбиблиотечный абонемент

  мф - Методический фонд

  ок - Отдел научной каталогизации

  оку - Отдел комплектования и учета

  орф - Обменно-резервный фонд

  пф - Читальный зал деловой и патентной информации

  рк - Фонд редкой книги

  ч/з - Главный читальный зал

  эр - Зал электронных ресурсов

Сиглы библиотек институтов и НЦ УрО РАН

© Международная Ассоциация пользователей и разработчиков электронных библиотек и новых информационных технологий
(Ассоциация ЭБНИТ)