Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations' COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations.
Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations' COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Delgado López-Cózar E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Martín-Martín A;Thelwall M;Orduna-Malea E;Delgado López-Cózar E
最近出现了新的引文数据来源，例如Microsoft Academic， Dimensions和CrossRef开放doi - doi引文索引（COCI）的开放引文索引。虽然这些已经与Web of Science Core Collection （WoS）、Scopus或谷歌Scholar进行了比较，但没有系统的证据表明它们在不同学科类别之间存在差异。为此，本文对这6个数据源发现的3,073,351次引用进行了调查，选取了2006年发表的2,515篇高被引英语文献，涵盖252个学科类别，扩展和更新了之前最大的研究。谷歌Scholar发现了88%的引用，其中许多是其他来源没有发现的，几乎所有的引用都是其他来源发现的（89-94%）。在大多数主题类别中都有类似的模式。微软学术是第二大引用（占所有引用的60%），包括82%的Scopus引用和86%的WoS引用。在大多数类别中，Microsoft Academic比Scopus和WoS发现了更多的引用（分别为182和223个主题类别），但在某些领域（如物理和一些人文学科类别）的覆盖范围存在差距。在Scopus之后，Dimensions排名第四（占所有引用的54%），包括84%的Scopus引用和88%的WoS引用。它在36个类别中发现了比Scopus更多的引用，在185个类别中发现了比WoS更多的引用，并且显示出一些覆盖差距，特别是在人文学科领域。在WoS之后，COCI是最小的，占所有引用的28%。谷歌Scholar仍然是最全面的来源。就覆盖范围而言，在许多主题类别中，Microsoft Academic和Dimensions是Scopus和WoS的良好替代品。
New sources of citation data have recently become available, such as Microsoft Academic, Dimensions, and the OpenCitations Index of CrossRef open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI). Although these have been compared to the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS), Scopus, or Google Scholar, there is no systematic evidence of their differences across subject categories. In response, this paper investigates 3,073,351 citations found by these six data sources to 2,515 English-language highly-cited documents published in 2006 from 252 subject categories, expanding and updating the largest previous study. Google Scholar found 88% of all citations, many of which were not found by the other sources, and nearly all citations found by the remaining sources (89–94%). A similar pattern held within most subject categories. Microsoft Academic is the second largest overall (60% of all citations), including 82% of Scopus citations and 86% of WoS citations. In most categories, Microsoft Academic found more citations than Scopus and WoS (182 and 223 subject categories, respectively), but had coverage gaps in some areas, such as Physics and some Humanities categories. After Scopus, Dimensions is fourth largest (54% of all citations), including 84% of Scopus citations and 88% of WoS citations. It found more citations than Scopus in 36 categories, more than WoS in 185, and displays some coverage gaps, especially in the Humanities. Following WoS, COCI is the smallest, with 28% of all citations. Google Scholar is still the most comprehensive source. In many subject categories Microsoft Academic and Dimensions are good alternatives to Scopus and WoS in terms of coverage.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Harzing, Anne-Wil;Alakangas, Satu
通讯作者：
Alakangas, Satu
影响因子：
6.4
作者：
Baas, Jeroen;Schotten, Michiel;Karimi, Reza
通讯作者：
Karimi, Reza
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Hug, Sven E.;Brandle, Martin P.
通讯作者：
Brandle, Martin P.
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Haunschild, Robin;Hug, Sven E.;Bornmann, Lutz
通讯作者：
Bornmann, Lutz
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Gusenbauer, Michael
通讯作者：
Gusenbauer, Michael