IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i23p16413-d1290549.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discrepancies in Mapping Sustainable Development Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) Research: A Comparative Analysis of Scopus and Dimensions Databases

Author

Listed:
  • Raghu Raman

    (Amrita School of Business, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, Kollam 690525, India)

  • Vinith Kumar Nair

    (Amrita School of Business, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, Kollam 690525, India)

  • Prema Nedungadi

    (Amrita School of Computing, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, Kollam 690525, India)

Abstract

Understanding the alignment and contributions of scientific research to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is essential for guiding global progress toward these critical targets. In this context, the study focuses on SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), as it dominates the most researched SDG literature, thus providing a meaningful representation of the broader SDG research landscape. The comprehensive examination of the SDG 3-related research from 2018 to 2022 highlights significant discrepancies in publications mapped to SDG 3 between the two largest databases, Scopus and Dimensions. Despite previous studies showing Dimensions to have more coverage, the present analysis finds Scopus to report 124% more publications in this area. These discrepancies extend across various levels, including country, funder, institution, journal, and author, and have substantial implications for stakeholders relying on these data. Notably, contrasting cluster themes are discovered, with Dimensions revealing five integrative clusters and Scopus focusing on six specialized ones. This discrepancy can affect global research attention, funding allocation, institutional recognition, and SDG journal alignment. The findings emphasize the need for standardization and transparency in SDG mapping methodologies, especially as the 2030 target year approaches and progress on many 2030 SDG targets is lagging. It also highlights the importance of acknowledging and understanding these disparities at various levels of the research ecosystem. The study raises questions about similar discrepancies in other SDGs and necessitates a broader analysis that might include more databases and refine publication types. It serves as a cautionary reminder to the scientific community, policymakers, and other stakeholders about the importance of careful and comprehensive evaluation when mapping publications to SDGs.

Suggested Citation

  • Raghu Raman & Vinith Kumar Nair & Prema Nedungadi, 2023. "Discrepancies in Mapping Sustainable Development Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) Research: A Comparative Analysis of Scopus and Dimensions Databases," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-23, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:23:p:16413-:d:1290549
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/23/16413/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/23/16413/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christine Meschede, 2020. "The Sustainable Development Goals in Scientific Literature: A Bibliometric Overview at the Meta-Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Philippe Mongeon & Adèle Paul-Hus, 2016. "The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 213-228, January.
    3. Kyle Siler & Philippe Vincent-Lamarre & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière, 2021. "Predatory publishers’ latest scam: bootlegged and rebranded papers," Nature, Nature, vol. 598(7882), pages 563-565, October.
    4. Syed Mithun Ali & Andrea Appolloni & Fausto Cavallaro & Idiano D’Adamo & Assunta Di Vaio & Francesco Ferella & Massimo Gastaldi & Muhammad Ikram & Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar & Michael Alan Martin & Abdul, 2023. "Development Goals towards Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-11, June.
    5. Aswathy Sreenivasan & Suresh Ma & Prema Nedungadi & V. Raja Sreedharan & R. Raghu Raman, 2023. "Interpretive Structural Modeling: Research Trends, Linkages to Sustainable Development Goals, and Impact of COVID-19," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-27, February.
    6. Anne-Wil Harzing, 2019. "Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 341-349, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Academic vs. biological age in research on academic careers: a large-scale study with implications for scientifically developing systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3543-3575, June.
    2. Vivek Kumar Singh & Prashasti Singh & Mousumi Karmakar & Jacqueline Leta & Philipp Mayr, 2021. "The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5113-5142, June.
    3. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Kun Lu & Gang Li, 2021. "Finding citations for PubMed: a large-scale comparison between five freely available bibliographic data sources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9519-9542, December.
    4. Michael Gusenbauer, 2022. "Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2683-2745, May.
    5. Gerson Pech & Catarina Delgado, 2020. "Assessing the publication impact using citation data from both Scopus and WoS databases: an approach validated in 15 research fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 909-924, November.
    6. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    7. Toluwase Victor Asubiaro & Sodiq Onaolapo, 2023. "A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(7), pages 745-758, July.
    8. Philip J. Purnell, 2021. "Conference proceedings publications in bibliographic databases: a case study of countries in Southeast Asia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 355-387, January.
    9. Tripathy, Prajukta & Jena, Pabitra Kumar & Mishra, Bikash Ranjan, 2024. "Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis of energy efficiency," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    10. Maribel Vega-Arce & Gonzalo Salas & Gastón Núñez-Ulloa & Cristián Pinto-Cortez & Ivelisse Torres Fernandez & Yuh-Shan Ho, 2019. "Research performance and trends in child sexual abuse research: a Science Citation Index Expanded-based analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1505-1525, December.
    11. Antonio-José Moreno-Guerrero & María Elena Parra-González & Jesús López-Belmonte & Adrián Segura-Robles, 2022. "Science mapping analysis of “cultural” in web of science (1908–2019)," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 239-257, February.
    12. Adela Toscano-Valle & Antonio Sianes & Francisco Santos-Carrillo & Luis A. Fernández-Portillo, 2022. "Can the Rational Design of International Institutions Solve Cooperation Problems? Insights from a Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-22, June.
    13. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    14. Corsini, Alberto & Pezzoni, Michele, 2023. "Does grant funding foster research impact? Evidence from France," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    15. Vanessa Sandoval-Romero & Vincent Larivière, 2020. "The national system of researchers in Mexico: implications of publication incentives for researchers in social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 99-126, January.
    16. Mike Thelwall, 2020. "Mid-career field switches reduce gender disparities in academic publishing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1365-1383, June.
    17. Patricia de Oliveira Melo & Renata Marques Britto & Tharcisio Cotta Fontainha & Adriana Leiras & Renata Albergaria de Mello Bandeira, 2017. "Evaluation of community leaders’ perception regarding Alerta Rio, the warning system for landslides caused by heavy rains in Rio de Janeiro," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 89(3), pages 1343-1368, December.
    18. Odeh Al-Jayyousi & Hira Amin & Hiba Ali Al-Saudi & Amjaad Aljassas & Evren Tok, 2023. "Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy for Sustainable Development: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-21, August.
    19. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    20. Yves Gingras & Mahdi Khelfaoui, 2018. "Assessing the effect of the United States’ “citation advantage” on other countries’ scientific impact as measured in the Web of Science (WoS) database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 517-532, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:23:p:16413-:d:1290549. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.