IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i5d10.1007_s11192-022-04309-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From indexation policies through citation networks to normalized citation impacts: Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions as varying resonance chambers

Author

Listed:
  • Stephan Stahlschmidt

    (German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW))

  • Dimity Stephen

    (German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW))

Abstract

Dimensions was introduced as an alternative bibliometric database to the well-established Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, however all three databases have fundamental differences in coverage and content, resultant from their owners’ indexation philosophies. In light of these differences, we explore here, using a citation network analysis and assessment of normalized citation impact of overlapping publications indexed in all three databases, whether the three databases offer structurally different perspectives of the bibliometric landscape or if they are essentially homogenous substitutes. Our citation network analysis of core and exclusive 2016–2018 publications revealed a large set of core publications indexed in all three databases that are highly self-referential. In comparison, each database selected a set of exclusive publications that appeared to hold similarly low levels of relevance to the core set and to one another, with slightly more internal communication between exclusive publications in Scopus and Dimensions than WoS. Our comparison of normalized citations for 41,848 publications indexed in all three databases found that German sectors were valuated as more impactful in Scopus and Dimensions compared to WoS, particularly for sectors with an applied research focus. We conclude that the databases do present structurally different perspectives, although Scopus and Dimensions with their additional circle of applied research vary more from the more base research-focused WoS than they do from one another.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephan Stahlschmidt & Dimity Stephen, 2022. "From indexation policies through citation networks to normalized citation impacts: Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions as varying resonance chambers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2413-2431, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04309-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04309-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04309-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-022-04309-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Junwen Zhu & Guangyuan Hu & Weishu Liu, 2019. "DOI errors and possible solutions for Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 709-718, February.
    2. Emanuel Kulczycki & Tim C. E. Engels & Janne Pölönen & Kasper Bruun & Marta Dušková & Raf Guns & Robert Nowotniak & Michal Petr & Gunnar Sivertsen & Andreja Istenič Starčič & Alesia Zuccala, 2018. "Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 463-486, July.
    3. Stephen, Dimity & Stahlschmidt, Stephan & Hinze, Sybille, 2020. "Performance and structures of the German science system 2020," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 5-2020, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    4. Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 430-435.
    5. 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.
    6. Paul Donner, 2017. "Document type assignment accuracy in the journal citation index data of Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 219-236, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Silva, Emmanuel Marques & Moreira, Rafael de Lacerda & Bortolon, Patricia Maria, 2023. "Mental Accounting and decision making: a systematic literature review," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    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. 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.
    2. Hunter Bennett & Flynn Slattery, 2023. "Graphical abstracts are associated with greater Altmetric attention scores, but not citations, in sport science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3793-3804, June.
    3. Xu, Fang & Ou, Guiyan & Ma, Tingcan & Wang, Xianwen, 2021. "The consistency of impact of preprints and their journal publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    4. 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.
    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. Juan Andrés Cabral & Florencia Iara Pucci, 2020. "¿Cuál es el alcance de la revolución de la credibilidad?," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4318, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    7. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 871-906, January.
    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. 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.
    10. Zoltán Lakner & Brigitta Plasek & Gyula Kasza & Anna Kiss & Sándor Soós & Ágoston Temesi, 2021. "Towards Understanding the Food Consumer Behavior–Food Safety–Sustainability Triangle: A Bibliometric Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, November.
    11. 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.
    12. Hui Li & Weishu Liu, 2020. "Same same but different: self-citations identified through Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2723-2732, September.
    13. Stephen, Dimity & Stahlschmidt, Stephan, 2021. "Performance and structures of the German science system 2021," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 5-2021, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    14. Mehdi Toloo & Rouhollah Khodabandelou & Amar Oukil, 2022. "A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Fractional Programming (1965–2020)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-21, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Olena Horobets, 2021. "Research Data as a Result of Research Activities: the Role and Significance for the Official Statistics," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(3), pages 1424-1436, September.
    17. Jordi Ardanuy & Llorenç Arguimbau & Ángel Borrego, 2022. "Social sciences and humanities research funded under the European Union Sixth Framework Programme (2002–2006): a long-term assessment of projects, acknowledgements and publications," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    18. İsmail Dönmez, 2024. "Sustainability in Educational Research: Mapping the Field with a Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-16, June.
    19. Siluo Yang & Xin Xing & Fan Qi & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2021. "Comparison of academic book impact from a disciplinary perspective: an analysis of citations and altmetric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1101-1123, February.
    20. Andreea Mironescu & Alina Moroșanu & Anca-Diana Bibiri, 2023. "The regional dynamics of multilingual publishing in web of science: A statistical analysis of central and eastern european journals and researchers in linguistics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1133-1162, 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:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04309-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.