Herzog, C. Dimensions: Bringing down barriers between scientometricians and data / C. Herzog, D. Hook, S. Konkiel // Quantitative Science Studies. - 2020. - Vol. 1, № 1. - P. 387-395 Кл.слова (ненормированные): BIBLIOMETRICS -- SCIENTOMETRICS -- DIMENSIONS -- INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT Аннотация: Until recently, comprehensive scientometrics data has been made available only in siloed, subscription-based tools that are inaccessible to researchers who lack institutional support and resources. As a result of limited data access, research evaluation practices have focused upon basic indicators that only take publications and their citation rates into account. This has blocked innovation on many fronts. Dimensions is a database that links and contextualizes different research information objects. It brings together data describing and linking awarded grants, clinical trials, patents, and policy documents, as well as altmetric information, alongside traditional publications and citations data. This article describes the approach that Digital Science is taking to support the scientometric community, together with the various Dimensions tools available to researchers who wish to use Dimensions data in their research at no cost. |
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. |