IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i7d10.1007_s11192-024-05073-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of datasets citation coverage in Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Crossref, and DataCite

Author

Listed:
  • Irina Gerasimov

    (ADNET Systems, Inc
    NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
    Towson University)

  • Binita KC

    (ADNET Systems, Inc
    NASA Goddard Space Flight Center)

  • Armin Mehrabian

    (ADNET Systems, Inc
    NASA Goddard Space Flight Center)

  • James Acker

    (ADNET Systems, Inc
    NASA Goddard Space Flight Center)

  • Michael P. McGuire

    (Towson University)

Abstract

The rapid increase of Earth science data from remote sensing, models, and ground-based observations highlights an urgent need for effective data management practices. Data repositories track provenance and usage metrics which are crucial for ensuring data integrity and scientific reproducibility. Although the introduction of Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for datasets in the late 1990s has significantly aided in crediting creators and enhancing dataset discoverability (akin to traditional research citations), considerable challenges persist in establishing linkage of datasets used with scholarly documents. This study evaluates the citation coverage of datasets from NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) across several major bibliographic sources ‒ namely Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Crossref, and DataCite—which helps data managers in making informed decisions when selecting bibliographic sources. We provide a robust and comprehensive understanding of the citation landscape, crucial for advancing data management practices and advancing open science. Our study searched and analyzed temporal trends across the bibliographic sources for publications that cite approximately 11,000 DOIs associated with EOSDIS datasets, yielding 17,000 unique journal and conference articles, reports, and book records linked to 3,000 dataset DOIs. GS emerged as the most comprehensive source while Crossref lagged significantly behind the other major sources. Crossref’s record references revealed that the absence of dataset DOIs and shortcomings in the Crossref Event data interface likely contributed to its underperformance. Scopus initially outperformed WoS until 2020, after which WoS began to show superior performance. Overall, our study underscores the necessity of utilizing multiple bibliographic sources for citation analysis, particularly for exploring dataset-to-document connections.

Suggested Citation

  • Irina Gerasimov & Binita KC & Armin Mehrabian & James Acker & Michael P. McGuire, 2024. "Comparison of datasets citation coverage in Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Crossref, and DataCite," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 3681-3704, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05073-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05073-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05073-5
    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/s11192-024-05073-5?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. Robinson-Garcia, Nicolas & Mongeon, Philippe & Jeng, Wei & Costas, Rodrigo, 2017. "DataCite as a novel bibliometric source: Coverage, strengths and limitations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 841-854.
    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. Gianmaria Silvello, 2018. "Theory and practice of data citation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(1), pages 6-20, January.
    4. Mengnan Zhao & Erjia Yan & Kai Li, 2018. "Data set mentions and citations: A content analysis of full†text publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(1), pages 32-46, January.
    5. Michael Gusenbauer, 2019. "Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 177-214, January.
    6. Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 430-435.
    7. Nicolas Robinson-García & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras & Daniel Torres-Salinas, 2016. "Analyzing data citation practices using the data citation index," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(12), pages 2964-2975, December.
    8. Moed, Henk F. & Bar-Ilan, Judit & Halevi, Gali, 2016. "A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 533-551.
    9. Ivan Heibi & Silvio Peroni & David Shotton, 2019. "Software review: COCI, the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 1213-1228, November.
    10. Isabella Peters & Peter Kraker & Elisabeth Lex & Christian Gumpenberger & Juan Gorraiz, 2016. "Research data explored: an extended analysis of citations and altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 723-744, May.
    11. Ad A.M. Prins & Rodrigo Costas & Thed N. van Leeuwen & Paul F. Wouters, 2016. "Using Google Scholar in research evaluation of humanities and social science programs: A comparison with Web of Science data," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 264-270.
    12. 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.
    13. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas, 2016. "Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 787-804, February.
    14. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Correction to: 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 907-908, January.
    15. Halevi, Gali & Moed, Henk & Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2017. "Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the Literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 823-834.
    16. Hyoungjoo Park & Dietmar Wolfram, 2017. "An examination of research data sharing and re-use: implications for data citation practice," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 443-461, April.
    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. 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. 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.
    3. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Alternative medicines worth researching? Citation analyses of acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, and osteopathy 1996–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8731-8747, October.
    4. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Thelwall, Mike & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1160-1177.
    5. 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.
    6. Dušan Nikolić & Dragan Ivanović & Lidija Ivanović, 2024. "An open-source tool for merging data from multiple citation databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4573-4595, July.
    7. Gabriel Alves Vieira & Jacqueline Leta, 2024. "biblioverlap: an R package for document matching across bibliographic datasets," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4513-4527, July.
    8. Ruben Tessmann & Ralf Elbert, 2022. "Multi-sided platforms in competitive B2B networks with varying governmental influence – a taxonomy of Port and Cargo Community System business models," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(2), pages 829-872, June.
    9. Shir Aviv-Reuven & Ariel Rosenfeld, 2023. "A logical set theory approach to journal subject classification analysis: intra-system irregularities and inter-system discrepancies in Web of Science and Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 157-175, January.
    10. Nushrat Khan & Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2021. "Measuring the impact of biodiversity datasets: data reuse, citations and altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3621-3639, April.
    11. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico & Mastrogiacomo, Luca, 2016. "Empirical analysis and classification of database errors in Scopus and Web of Science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 933-953.
    12. 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.
    13. Ignacio Rodríguez-Rodríguez & José-Víctor Rodríguez & Niloofar Shirvanizadeh & Andrés Ortiz & Domingo-Javier Pardo-Quiles, 2021. "Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Big Data and the Internet of Things to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scientometric Review Using Text Mining," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-29, August.
    14. Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 430-435.
    15. Mike Thelwall, 2020. "Data in Brief: Can a mega-journal for data be useful?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 697-709, July.
    16. Jua Cilliers & Shanaka Herath & Sumita Ghosh, 2024. "Going Back to School: Reflecting on School Space as “Shared Space” to Shape Cities and Communities," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9.
    17. Andrzej Lis & Agata Sudolska & Mateusz Tomanek, 2020. "Mapping Research on Sustainable Supply-Chain Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-26, May.
    18. Christopher Hansen & Holger Steinmetz & Jörn Block, 2022. "How to conduct a meta-analysis in eight steps: a practical guide," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 1-19, February.
    19. Tessmann, R. & Elbert, R., 2022. "Multi sided platforms in competitive B2B networks with varying governmental influence – a taxonomy of Port and Cargo Community System business models," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 132320, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    20. Shirley Ainsworth & Jane M. Russell, 2018. "Has hosting on science direct improved the visibility of Latin American scholarly journals? A preliminary analysis of data quality," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1463-1484, June.

    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:129:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05073-5. 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.