Dimensions: Building Context for Search and Evaluation

Hook, Daniel W.; Porter, Simon; Herzog, Christian

doi:10.3389/frma.2018.00023

Cited by 186 publications

(153 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

150

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2018, Digital Science launched the Dimensions database (Hook et al 2018 ). Dimensions uses a freemium model in which the basic search and browsing functionalities are free, but advanced functionalities, such as API access, require payment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The packages used for initial keyword‐based literature mining are rPlos , rcrossref , aRxiv , easyPubMed , NLP , and fulltext . We have also made use of AI tools like Dimensions.ai and Semantic Scholarfor doing thematic literature mining. After doing an extensive exercise of text data mining (TDM), we were able to collect a large enough corpus of published material available in the online repositories, which they were processed through the following steps: Using RIS files of the collection of papers as inputs to VOSviewer …”

Section: Methodsologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of two‐dimensional materials from Raman spectral data

Mishra

Tripathi

2019

J Raman Spectroscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two-dimensional materials like graphene and transition metal dichalcogenides materials such as WS 2 and MoS 2 are an attractive material platform for optoelectronics devices, photovoltaics, and strain-induced deterministic singlephoton sources due to high carrier mobility, tunable band gap, and ease of transfer on the desired substrates. In many of these applications, knowing the number of layers is important; for example, only strained monolayer of WSe 2 emits single photons at 4.5 K. Here, we present an analytical tool based on open-source Python modules to determine the number of layers (accurately, up to five layers) by analyzing Raman spectral data. Using the data from spatially resolved Raman measurements on a two-dimensional material and this tool, the sample morphology in terms of a number of layers can be preliminarily determined.

show abstract

“…The Dimensions scholarly database includes research articles, books, chapters, awarded grants, patents, clinical trials, and policy documents. The metadata for this database is harvested from sources such as CrossRef, PubMed, Directory of Open Access Journals, Open Citation Data, clinical trial registries, patent offices, and over 100 publishers [1, 2]. In some cases, full-text data are indexed from open sources such as PubMed Central and arXiv, providing greater discovery and access capabilities than other citation databases [3].…”

Section: Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%