Kirjaudu Wikiin oikeasta yläkulmasta, jos haluat kommentoida opasta.

|

Log in from the top right corner if you want to comment on the guide.

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 4 Next »

Citation databases include information on publications in the database and the citations between them. Citation information shows how often other publications in the database have cited the publication being examined. In addition to the citation numbers of an individual publication, citation databases typically allow users to review things such as how many times a certain author or the publications of a certain organisation have been cited. The number of citations received by a publication varies in different databases. Citation databases usually focus on scientific journal articles, but they can also include monographs, conference publications and reports. No citation database includes all publications. It should also be kept in mind that certain fields of sciences (such as medical and natural sciences) have better representation in databases than others (such as social sciences, humanities and arts). The number of citations in databases also depends on the length of the period from which the database has citation data and on how often the citation data is updated in the database. All databases also have some errors. The content of databases is constantly changing, because they add new materials to their collection and remove outdated content while also updating citation data of older publications.

The two of the most well-known multidisciplinary databases are Web of Science (WoS) by Clarivate Analytics and Scopus by Elsevier. Both WoS and Scopus contain curated materials and they have certain quality criteria for their database content, for example, the journals must apply a peer review process and have an editorial board and an ISSN identifier. The title and abstract of the article must be written in English. Citation data can also be analysed in the publicly available Dimensions and Google Scholar (GS) services. Both Dimensions and GS index materials into their collections with automated methods, without a separate validation process. The basic content and functionalities of the Dimensions database are available openly and free of charge. Paying subscribers also have access to a version with more extensive content and more versatile analysis functionalities. GS is a free search engine that is specialised in finding scientific information, but it also holds non-scientific materials such as thesis works. Its citation data also includes many citations from non-scientific publications, and their number of citations differs greatly from that of the WoS and Scopus databases. This guide presents GS along with citation databases, although it is not an actual database. All three databases, as well as Google Scholar, have been presented in more detail in their own chapters.

Comparing the sources of citation data

Because the indexing methods and collection policy strategies of materials in citation databases vary significantly, so does the content of these databases. WoS and Scopus both apply a selective collection policy and have editorial boards with experts of different fields that help them select and index their content. Dimensions is heavily reliant on machine learning and data processing implemented with automated algorithms instead of manual curating done by experts. Dimensions mainly indexes all scientific publications and data sets with a DOI identifier. The automated methods of Google Scholar, on the other hand, crawl the internet and index all publications that they recognise as having an academic structure.

The publishing practices of different disciplines, such as the publication type and language, are reflected in the coverage of the databases. The traditional citation databases, such as WoS and Scopus, mainly contain scientific journals. Fields of sciences where books are a typical type of publication are poorly represented in these databases, in particular. The content is also often lacking in terms of conference publications. Typically, social sciences and humanities have the poorest coverage. The fact that the databases mainly focus on literature written in English is another limiting factor of their coverage. Although the databases also accept publications in languages other than English, one of the selection criteria for the articles published in these publication channels is that their abstracts and titles are written in English. Dimensions and GS, which are based on automated indexing methods, reach a significantly higher degree of coverage in most fields of science. Dimensions is noticeably more extensive than WoS or Scopus, especially when it comes to edited books, their chapters or monographs.

Several studies have been carried out on the differences between databases and on the extent of their coverage of materials from different fields of science. Many of these studies show that the coverage of the WoS Core Collection database is lower within many fields of science than that of its competing databases (e.g. Mongeon, P. & Paul-Hus, A. 2016; Martín-Martín, A. et al. 2021; Singh, V.K. et al. 2021; Visser, M. et al. 2021). The citation data source that proved in many studies to have the best coverage in nearly all fields of science out of all sources presented in this guide is Google Scholar (e.g. Harzing, A.-W. 2019; Martín-Martín, A. et al. 2021). Some recent studies about the coverage of citation database materials have been listed at the end of this chapter. Additionally, a coverage comparison of databases carried out on the basis of publications produced by the University of Jyväskylä can be found as an attachment

When selecting a database, however, the coverage of its materials is not the only criteria. The search functions and the quality of the indexed materials also matter. Even though GS has greater coverage than its competitors, its search functions have some limitations, such as limited use of Boolean operators and very limited filtering options for search results. The traditional WoS and Scopus databases that have been on the market for a long time have weaker coverage, the materials are indexed into the databases at a slower pace, and they are also paid services. On the other hand, they both have a wide range of search functions, and the materials indexed by them have been validated. The table 1 presents the key functionalities and content of the Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions databases as well as the Google Scholar service to allow for easy comparisons of the citation databases. In the name of responsible publication metrics, the citation database used for an analysis should be selected, in addition to the usage requirements, by considering the needs of the scientific field being analysed. If possible, it is recommended that more than one citation database be used for any publication-based analyses.

Researcher and organisation profiles in citation databases

  • Typically, researcher and organisation profiles are created with the help of the service providers’ own algorithms for the organisations and authors represented in the publications.
  • Researcher and organisation profiles of citation databases often have some errors. Some aspects that make identifying the authors of publications more difficult are common surnames, name changes and characters not used in the English language. Similarly, the names of organisations may change or the organisations may undergo structural changes. The algorithms of citation databases do not necessarily recognise changes such as this.
  • The publication is linked to a certain researcher and organisation based on the information stated in the publications. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that the authors mark down their organisation correctly in all the publications they write. The names of organisations and their units and departments should be written down in full, avoiding any abbreviations.
  • In the case of the Web of Science and Scopus databases, organisations and researchers can also themselves ensure that their profiles are up to date and accurate. Keeping the researcher and organisation profiles accurate is a continuous process. The researcher profiles may be broken despite the corrections, and the service provider can accidentally link corrected organisation profiles to publications that do not actually belong to it.
  • Keeping the organisation profiles of citation databases up to date is an important task, as this information is used for various benchmarking and collaboration analyses. Many ranking organisations also utilise this data.



Web of ScienceScopusDimensionsGoogle Scholar
AvailabilityPaidPaid

Basic content and functionalities are publicly available, more advanced use and more extensive content are subject to a charge.

Free

Number of journals

(Dimensions: Number of publication channels)

~22 000~24 000

~99 000 + ~1M books

(own channel-level metadata for ~45,500 publication channels)

Not public
Muu sisältö

Julkaisut: konferenssijulkaisuja, monografioita. Pienissä määrin myös muita julkaisutyyppejä.

Sisältää lisäksi tietoa rahoittajista

Julkaisut: konferenssijulkaisuja, monografioita, kirjan/kokoomateoksen osia, ammattilehtiä ja patentteja. Pienissä määrin myös muita julkaisutyyppejä.

Sisältää lisäksi tietoa rahoittajista

Julkaisut: kirjan/kokoomateoksen osia, konferenssijulkaisuja, preprinttejä, monografioita, patentteja ja yhteiskunnallisia julkaisuja

Sisältää lisäksi tietoa dataseteistä, tutkimuksen rahoituksesta ja kliinisistä kokeista.

Tieteelliset julkaisut ja tiedot dataseteistä sisältyvät ilmaisversioon. Muu sisältö maksullista.

Konferenssijulkaisuja, monografioita, preprinttejä, opinnäytteitä, ppt-esityksiä, www-sivuja

Keskeisimmät alatLuonnontieteet, lääketiede, tekniikka, yhteiskuntatieteet, taiteet ja humanistiset tieteetLuonnontieteet, tekniikka, terveystieteet, yhteiskuntatieteet, taiteet ja humanistiset tieteetParhainta kattavuus on aloilla: luonnontieteet, lääketiede, tekniikka ja yhteiskuntatieteetEi julkinen
Ajallinen kattavuusVuodesta 1900 lähtien (Science), vuodesta 1956 (Social Sciences) ja 1975 (Arts and Humanities), aineiston saatavuus riippuu organisaation hankkimista lisensseistäKattavuus vaihtelee, osa lehdistä 1780-luvulle asti, viitteissä lähdetiedot 1970 lähtien

Ei erillistä linjausta indeksoitavan aineiston iästä, indeksoi pääsääntöisesti kaikki julkaisut, joilla on DOI-tunniste.

Ei julkinen
Kielellinen kattavuus ja indeksoitavan aineiston kielivaatimukset

Sisältää pääsääntöisesti englanninkielistä aineistoa. Pienessä määrin myös muunkielistä aineistoa.

Indeksoitavaksi hyväksyttävien julkaisukanavien artikkeleiden otsikko ja tiivistelmä tulee olla englanninkielinen.

Sisältää pääsääntöisesti englanninkielistä aineistoa. Pienessä määrin myös muunkielistä aineistoa.

Indeksoitavaksi hyväksyttävien julkaisukanavien artikkeleiden otsikko ja tiivistelmä tulee olla englanninkielinen.

Sisältää pääsääntöisesti englanninkielistä aineistoa. Myös muunkielistä aineistoa jos niillä on DOI -tunniste. Julkaisu-, patentti ja apurahatietoja myös muilla kielillä.

Ei erillisiä kielellisiä vaatimuksia indeksoitavalle aineistolle. Apuraha- ja patenttitiedoissa käytetään tiivistelmien ja otsikoiden automaattista konekäännöstä.

Ei julkinen mutta sisältää englanninkielisen aineiston lisäksi myös muunkielistä aineistoa.
KokoelmapolitiikkaJulkinenJulkinenEi erillistä kokoelmapolitiikkaa. Indeksoi pääsääntöisesti kaikki julkaisut, joilla on DOI-tunniste.Ei julkinen, sopimus useimpien merkittävien kustantajien kanssa
ViittausanalyysiCitation Report -työkaluCitation Overview -työkaluAnalytical Views hakutuloksen yleisnäkymä sekä erilliset näkymät tieteenaloille, tutkijoille ja julkaisukanavilleHakutulosten yhteydessä Cited by -linkki, josta saa näkyviin julkaisuun viittaavat julkaisut sekä näkee viittausten määrän per julkaisu.

Viittaustietojen

ajallinen kattavuus

Vuodesta 1900 lähtien (Science), vuodesta 1956 (Social Sciences) ja 1975 (Arts and Humanities)Vuodesta 1970Vaihtelee. Tietokannassa on paikoin indeksoituna yli 100 vuotta vanhoja viittauksia, toisaalta joistakin aivan uusista indeksoiduista julkaisuista saattaa puuttua osa viitatuista lähteistä.Ei julkinen
IndikaattoreitaViittausten määrä, keskimääräinen viittausmäärä per julkaisu, keskimääräinen viittausmäärä per julkaisuvuosi, viittausmäärät vuosittain, h-indeksi, tietueen käyttötilasto (kuinka monta kertaa yksittäinen tietue on joko ladattu viiteidenhallintajärjestelmään tai avattu julkaisun kokoteksti)Viittausten määrä, viittausmäärät vuosittain, h-indeksi, tietueen katsontakerrat, PlumX käyttötilastoja kuvaavia indikaattoreita, tieteenalanormalisoitu viittausvaikuttavuusindikaattori artikkeleille ja lehdille.Viittausten määrä, viittausten määrä viimeiseltä kahdelta vuodelta, keskimääräinen viittausmäärä per julkaisu, keskimääräinen viittausmäärä per julkaisuvuosi, Altmetric.com palvelun löytämä online-huomio yksittäiselle tutkimustuotokselle, tieteenalapainotettu ja suhteellinen viittausvaikuttavuus

Viittausten määrä per julkaisu

Google Scholar profiilissa lisäksi tutkijakohtainen viittausmäärä, h-indeksi ja i10 -indeksi kaikilta vuosilta sekä vuodesta 2017 alkean.

Dataa hyödyntäviä yliopisto-rankingeja

Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) eli Shanghai Ranking

University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP)

U.S. News & World Report's Best Global Universities Rankings

U-Multirank

National Taiwan University (NTU) Ranking

CWTS Leiden Ranking

CWUR (Center for World University Ranking, United Arab Emirates)

Round University Ranking (RUR)

Suomen Akatemian Tieteen tila -raportit

Times Higher Education World University Ranking

Times Higher Education Impact Ranking

QS Ranking

Suomen Akatemian Tieteen tila -raportit

Ei tiedossa rankingeja, jotka hyödyntävät Dimensions dataaEi tiedossa rankingeja, jotka hyödyntävät Google Scholar dataa
TutkijaprofiiliResearcherID/PublonsScopus Author IdentifierDimensions researcher profileGoogle Scholar Profile 
Dataa hyödyntäviä työkalujaInCites, Journal Citation Reports, Eigenfactor, ScienceWatch, Publish or PerishSciVal, SCImago Journal and Country Rank, CWTS Journal Indicators, Publish or PerishDimensions Analytics, JYUcitePublish or Perish

Taulukko 1. Yhteenveto neljän keskeisimmän monitieteellisen viittaustiedonlähteen ominaisuuksista.

Sources:

Clarivate Analytics. Web of Science LibGuides. https://clarivate.libguides.com/home (Accessed 4.2.2022)

Digital Science. Dimensions. https://www.dimensions.ai/products/free/ (Accessed 12.4.2022)

Google. About Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/intl/fi/scholar/about.html (Accessed 18.2.2022)

Harzing, A.-W. (2019). Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science? Scientometrics, 120(1), 341–349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y

Martín-Martín, A. & Thelwall, M. & Orduna-Malea, E. & López-Cózar, E.D. 2021  Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics 126: S. 871–906. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4

Mongeon, P. & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106, pp. 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Elsevier. Scopus. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus (Accessed 12.4.2022)

Singh, V.K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M. et al. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 126, 5113–5142 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5

Visser, M. & van Eck, N.J. & Waltman, L.  2021. Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Science Studies 2(1): S. 20–41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112

Viimeaikaisia viittaustiedonlähteiden kattavuutta ja ominaisuuksia käsitteleviä tutkimuksia:

Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019

Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020). Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 363–376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00018

Gusenbauer, M. (2022). Search where you will fnd most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04289-7

Harzing, A.-W. (2019). Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science? Scientometrics, 120(1), 341–349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y

Herzog, C., Hook, D., & Konkiel, S. (2020). Dimensions: Bringing down barriers between scientometricians and data. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 387–395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00020

Huang, C.-K., Neylon, C., Brookes-Kenworthy, C., Hosking, R., Montgomery, L., ... Ozaygen, A. (2020). Comparison of bibliographic data sources: Implications for the robustness of university rankings. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(2), 445–478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00031

Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A multidisciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 116(3), 2175–2188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2820-9

Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002

Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2020). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. arXiv:2004.14329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4

Martín-Martín, A. & Thelwall, M. & Orduna-Malea, E. & López-Cózar, E.D. 2021  Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics 126: S. 871–906. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4

Mongeon, P. & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106, pp. 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Singh, V.K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M. et al. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 126, 5113–5142 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5

Visser, M. & van Eck, N.J. & Waltman, L.  2021. Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Science Studies 2(1): S. 20–41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112

Waltman, L., & Larivière, V. (2020). Special issue on bibliographic data sources. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 360–362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_e_00026

Comparison of the coverage of databases based on the publications of the University of Jyväskylä

Seppänen, J-T. Comparing citation database coverage: University of Jyväskylä research publications in Dimensions, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. This is an unpublished manuscript. Comparing citatation database coverage _draft.pdf

  • No labels