The museum of errors/horrors in Scopus

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

doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.006

Cited by 82 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although previous studies have compared Scopus and the WoS in terms of journal coverage (Falagas, Kouranos, Arancibia‐Jorge, & Karageorgopoulos, ; Lopez‐Illescas, Moya‐Anegon, & Moed, ; Mongeon & Paul‐Hus, ) and citation analysis (Li, Burnham, Lemley, & Britton, ; Meho & Sugimoto, ), inaccuracies have been recently reported for these databases (Franceschini, Maisano, & Mastrogiacomo, ; Valderrama‐Zurian, Aguilar‐Moya, Melero‐Fuentes, & Aleixandre‐Benavent, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Call for caution in the use of bibliometric data

Krauskopf

2017

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Call for caution in the use of bibliometric data

Krauskopf

2017

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Using the query string ‘ISSN(2071‐1050) AND (LIMIT‐TO(PUBYEAR,2015))’, the abstracting and indexing database provides 843 results. It deserves mentioning that at least one of the results is a duplicated item, probably due to matching issues within the indexing engine (Franceschini, Maisano, & Mastrogiacomo, , ; Meester, Colledge, & Dyas, ), and one is a correction. Therefore, the number of articles analysed here is equal to 841.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the skewness of journal self‐citations and publisher self‐citations: Cues for discussion from a case study

Copiello

2019

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper takes the cue from the case of a retracted paper, cited both by the retraction notice and by an article published later in the same journal. This led to analysis and discussion on the skewness of citations in the journal Sustainability and within Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) journals, particularly investigating self‐citations at journal and publisher levels. I analysed articles published by Sustainability in 2015 and found that self‐citations are higher than expected under a uniform probability distribution. Self‐citations in this journal make a 36% difference to the journal's impact factor. This research raises the question of what citation patterns can be expected as normal, and where the boundary between normal and anomaly lies. I suggest the issue deserves further investigation because self‐citations have several implications, ranging from impact factors to visibility and influence of scientific journals.

show abstract

“…Examples are comparisons of citation counts and citation-based rankings (such as the h-index) based on Scopus and WoS data respectively (Adriaanse & Rensleigh 2013, De Groote & Raszewski 2012, Harzing & Alakangas 2016, Meho & Sugimoto 2009, Onyancha & Ocholla 2009). More recent foci include analyses of the database errors in Scopus and WoS (Franceschini, Maisano & Mastrogiacomo 2016a, 2016b, 2016c and differences in the assignment of Scopus and WoS journals to field categories, in other words, journal classification systems (Wang & Waltman 2016), as well as illustrations of how differences in the assignment of keywords to articles could affect the analysis of research topics (Bartol & Mackiewicz-Talarczyk 2015).…”

Section: Scopus Versus Wos: Insights From the Relevant Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%