Центральная Научная Библиотека УрО РАН

Инвентарный номер: нет.



    Библиометрический учет результативности научной организации в ретро и перспективе / И. В. Зибварева, А. А. Ведягин, Л. Ю. Ильина // Труды ГПНТБ СО РАН. - 2017. - № 12-1. - С. 337-346
Кл.слова (ненормированные):
БИБЛИОМЕТРИЧЕСКИЕ ПОКАЗАТЕЛИ -- БАЗЫ ДАННЫХ -- BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS -- DATABASES -- RUSSIAN SCIENCE CITATION INDEX -- PUBLICATION ACTIVITY -- CITATION -- SCOPUS -- CHEMICAL ABSTRACTS -- РИНЦ -- ПУБЛИКАЦИОННАЯ АКТИВНОСТЬ -- ЦИТИРУЕМОСТЬ -- WEB OF SCIENCE
Аннотация: На примере Института катализа им. Г. К. Борескова Сибирского отделения Российской академии наук рассмотрены особенности формирования контента базы данных научных публикаций исследовательского института, включая ретроспективный, с использованием внешних национальных и глобальных библиографических ресурсов. The article represents special features of forming the retrospective and perspective content of a research institution scientific publications database based on outer national and global bibliographic resources evidently for Boreskov Institute of Catalysis of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Найти похожие

Инвентарный номер: нет.


    Singh, V. K.
    The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis / V. K. Singh, P. Singh , M. Karmakar, J. Leta, P. Mayr // Scientometrics. - 2021. - Vol. 126, № 6. - P. 5113-5142
Кл.слова (ненормированные):
SCIENTOMETRICS -- SCHOLARLY DATABASES -- DIMENSIONS -- WEB OF SCIENCE -- SCOPUS
Аннотация: Traditionally, Web of Science and Scopus have been the two most widely used databases for bibliometric analyses. However, during the last few years some new scholarly databases, such as Dimensions, have come up. Several previous studies have compared different databases, either through a direct comparison of article coverage or by comparing the citations across the databases. This article aims to present a comparative analysis of the journal coverage of the three databases (Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions), with the objective to describe, understand and visualize the differences in them. The most recent master journal lists of the three databases is used for analysis. The results indicate that the databases have significantly different journal coverage, with the Web of Science being most selective and Dimensions being the most exhaustive. About 99.11% and 96.61% of the journals indexed in Web of Science are also indexed in Scopus and Dimensions, respectively. Scopus has 96.42% of its indexed journals also covered by Dimensions. Dimensions database has the most exhaustive journal coverage, with 82.22% more journals than Web of Science and 48.17% more journals than Scopus. This article also analysed the research outputs for 20 selected countries for the 2010–2018 period, as indexed in the three databases, and identified database-induced variations in research output volume, rank, global share and subject area composition for different countries. It is found that there are clearly visible variations in the research output from different countries in the three databases, along with differential coverage of different subject areas by the three databases. The analytical study provides an informative and practically useful picture of the journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions databases.

Найти похожие

Инвентарный номер: нет.


    Stahlschmidt, S.
    From indexation policies through citation networks to normalized citation impacts: Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions as varying resonance chambers / S. Stahlschmidt, D. Stephen // Scientometrics. - 2022. - Vol. 127, № 5. - P. 2413-2431
Кл.слова (ненормированные):
DIMENSIONS -- WEB OF SCIENCE -- SCOPUS -- BIBLIOMETRIC DATABASE -- SCIENTOMETRICS
Аннотация: Dimensions was introduced as an alternative bibliometric database to the well-established Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, however all three databases have fundamental differences in coverage and content, resultant from their owners’ indexation philosophies. In light of these differences, we explore here, using a citation network analysis and assessment of normalized citation impact of overlapping publications indexed in all three databases, whether the three databases offer structurally different perspectives of the bibliometric landscape or if they are essentially homogenous substitutes. Our citation network analysis of core and exclusive 2016–2018 publications revealed a large set of core publications indexed in all three databases that are highly self-referential. In comparison, each database selected a set of exclusive publications that appeared to hold similarly low levels of relevance to the core set and to one another, with slightly more internal communication between exclusive publications in Scopus and Dimensions than WoS. Our comparison of normalized citations for 41,848 publications indexed in all three databases found that German sectors were valuated as more impactful in Scopus and Dimensions compared to WoS, particularly for sectors with an applied research focus. We conclude that the databases do present structurally different perspectives, although Scopus and Dimensions with their additional circle of applied research vary more from the more base research-focused WoS than they do from one another.

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

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)