Types of DOI errors of cited references in Web of Science with a cleaning method

Xu, Shuo; Hao, Liyuan; An, Xueli; Zhai, Dongsheng; Pang, Hongshen

doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03162-4

Cited by 26 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, general frequencies and types of errors occurring in both DBs have also been intensively studied [61,62]. Meanwhile, other authors discussed more specific deficiencies of the DBs, such as inconsistencies of journal coverage [63], the accuracy of subject classification schemes [64], missing citation information or citation links [40,65,66], incorrect and missing DOI numbers [53,[67][68][69], duplicate entries [30], and inconsistent publication dates [53].…”

Section: Literature Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, illegal naming (e.g., not beginning with the prefix "10.") [68,169] or zeros being treated as the letter "O" [69]. The vast majority of illegal DOI naming errors in WoS were identified as prefixtype errors [68].…”

Section: Errors In Publication Metadatamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[68,169] or zeros being treated as the letter "O" [69]. The vast majority of illegal DOI naming errors in WoS were identified as prefixtype errors [68]. Meanwhile, in Scopus, prefix-type errors were even more apparent [169].…”

Section: Errors In Publication Metadatamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, the importance of bibliographic databases (DBs) has increased enormously, as they are the main providers of publication metadata and bibliometric indicators universally used both for research assessment practices and for performing daily tasks. Because the reliability of these tasks firstly depends on the data source, all users of the DBs should be able to choose the most suitable one. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus are the two main bibliographic DBs. The comprehensive evaluation of the DBs’ coverage is practically impossible without extensive bibliometric analyses or literature reviews, but most DBs users do not have bibliometric competence and/or are not willing to invest additional time for such evaluations. Apart from that, the convenience of the DB’s interface, performance, provided impact indicators and additional tools may also influence the users’ choice. The main goal of this work is to provide all of the potential users with an all-inclusive description of the two main bibliographic DBs by gathering the findings that are presented in the most recent literature and information provided by the owners of the DBs at one place. This overview should aid all stakeholders employing publication and citation data in selecting the most suitable DB.

show abstract

Section: Literature Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Errors In Publication Metadatamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, DOI assignation is not always accurate. Indeed, one group found errors in 38% of the DOIs in the cited references of their sample from Web of Science (Xu, Hao, An, Zhai, & Pang, 2019). Most (92%) of the errors in the DOI were in the prefix and often included a surplus 'DOI' or a duplication of the DOI.…”

Section: Limitations Of Doi Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

The prevalence and impact of university affiliation discrepancies between four bibliographic databases—Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, and Microsoft Academic

Purnell

2022

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research managers benchmarking universities against international peers face the problem of affiliation disambiguation. Different databases have taken separate approaches to this problem and discrepancies exist between them. Bibliometric data sources typically conduct a disambiguation process that unifies variant institutional names and those of its sub-units so that researchers can then search all records from that institution using a single unified name. This study examined affiliation discrepancies between Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, and Microsoft Academic for 18 Arab universities over a five-year period. We confirmed that digital object identifiers (DOIs) are suitable for extracting comparable scholarly material across databases and quantified the affiliation discrepancies between them. A substantial share of records assigned to the selected universities in any one database were not assigned to the same university in another. The share of discrepancy was higher in the larger databases, Dimensions and Microsoft Academic. The smaller, more selective databases, Scopus and especially Web of Science tended to agree to a greater degree with affiliations in the other databases. Manual examination of affiliation discrepancies showed they were caused by a mixture of missing affiliations, unification differences, and assignation of records to the wrong institution. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00175

show abstract

“…Recent studies have extended these applications to include word, text and topic analyses to identify emerging topics and gaps in research (Westgate et al 2015, Greenville et al 2017. Given the scale and complexities involved in curating such databases as Scopus and WoS, it is hardly surprising that errors occur -their nature and consequences are discussed in bibliometric studies such as Franceschini et al (2015a,b;, Huang and Liu (2019), Selivanova et al (2019) and Xu et al (2019). Database managers are well aware of the issues and collaborate with publishers and refine their own methods to achieve accurate data capture, with manual feedback options to correct errors when detected (Meester et al 2016).…”

Section: Zoologistmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Century of Peer-reviewed Australian Zoological Research: Prominent Authors, Themes and Usage of Papers from Australian Zoologist

Calver

Crawford

Fletcher

2021

Australian Zoologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The peer-reviewed Australian Zoologist, first published in 1914, is Australia’s longest-lived zoological journal. Its publication history shows changes in the zoological topics covered over the last 100 years, including the animals studied, characteristics of the authors and readership, and the influence of the databases used to study the journal on information retrieval. Searches in different databases retrieved different numbers of papers; Scopus (including secondary documents not in the database but cited by documents that are in the database) was the most comprehensive. Although authors from 22 countries contributed papers over the history of the Australian Zoologist, over 90% of authors were Australian. Most international authors came from the USA, the UK, Canada and New Zealand. Approximately two-thirds of authors citing Australian Zoologist were Australian-based, but there were still 10 or more authors from each of thirty-four other countries citing Australian Zoologist: while regional, the journal has an international profile. Highly cited papers in Australian Zoologist had high mean Scopus percentile ranks (20th century 83.9, 21st century 73.7), indicating that in comparison to their fields globally, these papers are used well above average. Considering all papers published in Australian Zoologist, over time the proportion of papers in the categories ‘Biodiversity & Conservation’ and ‘Environmental Sciences & Ecology’ rose significantly, reflecting the increased research in these areas. Between 2013 and 2019, when relevant metrics are available in Scopus, Australian Zoologist declined in no metric measured while improving significantly in CiteScore, Highest Percentile, and % Cited, indicating increasing references to Australian Zoologist papers by other peer-reviewed publications. Between 2010 and 2019, 2.1% of Australian Zoologist papers were ranked within the top 10% in their fields globally, based on citation impact. Authors considering publishing in Australian Zoologist should note that longer papers are acceptable, colour imagery (including photographs) is encouraged, the journal is visible in major databases, it is cited internationally and there are no page charges.

show abstract

Types of DOI errors of cited references in Web of Science with a cleaning method

Cited by 26 publications

References 25 publications

Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World

Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World

The prevalence and impact of university affiliation discrepancies between four bibliographic databases—Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, and Microsoft Academic

A Century of Peer-reviewed Australian Zoological Research: Prominent Authors, Themes and Usage of Papers from Australian Zoologist

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About