Errors in DOI indexing by bibliometric databases

Franceschini, Fiorenzo; Maisano, Domenico Augusto Francesco; Mastrogiacomo, Luca

doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1503-4

Cited by 45 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on samples of duplicates identified in our study and in a recent study by Franceschini, Maisano, and Mastrogiacomo (2015), who found non-duplicate records with the same DOI in Scopus, it seems possible that Scopus is failing to check DOIs (see Figs. 2 and 3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus

Valderrama‐Zurián

Aguilar-Moya

Melero-Fuentes

et al. 2015

Journal of Informetrics

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus

Valderrama‐Zurián

Aguilar-Moya

Melero-Fuentes

et al. 2015

Journal of Informetrics

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The final reader count was the sum of the reader counts of all correctly matching articles (for more details, see : Thelwall & Wilson, 2016). DOIs are not universal in citation databases (Gorraiz, Melero-Fuentes, Gumpenberger, & Valderrama-Zurián, 2016) and are usually correct (Franceschini, Maisano, & Mastrogiacomo, 2015).…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?

Thelwall

2017

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reader counts from the social reference sharing site Mendeley are known to be valuable for early research evaluation. They have strong correlations with citation counts for journal articles but appear about a year before them. There are disciplinary differences in the value of Mendeley reader counts but systematic evidence is needed at the level of narrow fields to reveal its extent. In response, this article compares Mendeley reader counts with Scopus citation counts for journal articles from 2012 in 325 narrow Scopus fields. Despite strong positive correlations in most fields, averaging 0.671, the correlations in some fields are as weak as 0.255. Technical reasons explain most weaker correlations, suggesting that the underlying relationship is almost always strong. The exceptions are caused by unusually high educational or professional use or topics of interest within countries that avoid Mendeley. The findings suggest that if care is taken then Mendeley reader counts can be used for early citation impact evidence in almost all fields and for related impact in some of the remainder. As an additional application of the results, cross-checking with Mendeley data can be used to identify indexing anomalies in citation databases.

show abstract

“…Preliminary testing had found that both Scopus and Microsoft Academic records contained some errors in author names, journal names and publication years (as previously found for Scopus : Franceschini, Maisano, & Mastrogiacomo, 2015b), which accounts for the higher recall for the title-only searches despite using approximate match queries (single equals signs in the queries). Some title differences are also likely between Microsoft Academic and Scopus because titles are not always recorded consistently.…”

Section: Reasons For Queries Returning Incorrect or No Matchesmentioning

confidence: 62%

Microsoft Academic automatic document searches: Accuracy for journal articles and suitability for citation analysis

Thelwall

2018

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microsoft Academic is a free academic search engine and citation index that is similar to Google Scholar but can be automatically queried. Its data is potentially useful for bibliometric analysis if it is possible to search effectively for individual journal articles. This article compares different methods to find journal articles in its index by searching for a combination of title, authors, publication year and journal name and uses the results for the widest published correlation analysis of Microsoft Academic citation counts for journal articles so far. Based on 126,312 articles from 323 Scopus subfields in 2012, the optimal strategy to find articles with DOIs is to search for them by title and filter out those with incorrect DOIs. This finds 90% of journal articles. For articles without DOIs, the optimal strategy is to search for them by title and then filter out matches with dissimilar metadata. This finds 89% of journal articles, with an additional 1% incorrect matches. The remaining articles seem to be mainly not indexed by Microsoft Academic or indexed with a different language version of their title. From the matches, Scopus citation counts and Microsoft Academic counts have an average Spearman correlation of 0.95, with the lowest for any single field being 0.63. Thus, Microsoft Academic citation counts are almost universally equivalent to Scopus citation counts for articles that are not recent but there are national biases in the results. IntroductionCitation-based indicators frequently support formal and informal research evaluations (Wilsdon, Allen, Belfiore, Campbell, Curry, Hill, et al. 2015). They are typically gathered from Scopus or the Web of Science (WoS), both of which index large numbers of journal articles and some other document types. Previous research has found Google Scholar to return higher citation counts than Scopus and WoS for most fields (Falagas, Pitsouni, Malietzis, & Pappas, 2008;Halevi, Moed, & Bar-Ilan, 2017) because of its inclusion of open access online publications in addition to publisher databases. It is not possible to use Google Scholar for large-scale citation analyses because it does not allow automatic data harvesting (Halevi, Moed, & Bar-Ilan, 2017), except for individual academics through the Publish or Perish software (Harzing, 2007). Microsoft Academic, which was officially released in July 2017, is like Google Scholar in its coverage of academic literature, harvesting from publishers and the open web (Harzing & Alakangas, 2017ab;Paszcza, 2016; Thelwall, in press-a, submitted; but allows automatic data harvesting. It is therefore a promising source of citation data for large scale citation analyses. It should be especially useful for fields with many online publications and for recently-published research since it includes citations from preprints (Thelwall, in press-a, submitted). Nevertheless, one important limitation is that it does not allow DOI searches (Hug, Ochsner, & Brändle, 2017) and so it is not clear whether it is possible to obtain reasonably compr...

show abstract

Errors in DOI indexing by bibliometric databases

Cited by 45 publications

References 6 publications

A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus

A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus

Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?

Microsoft Academic automatic document searches: Accuracy for journal articles and suitability for citation analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About