The indexation of retracted literature in seven principal scholarly databases: a coverage comparison of dimensions, OpenAlex, PubMed, Scilit, Scopus, The Lens and Web of Science

IF 3.5 3区管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Scientometrics Pub Date : 2024-06-28 DOI:10.1007/s11192-024-05034-y

José Luis Ortega, Lorena Delgado-Quirós

{"title":"The indexation of retracted literature in seven principal scholarly databases: a coverage comparison of dimensions, OpenAlex, PubMed, Scilit, Scopus, The Lens and Web of Science","authors":"José Luis Ortega, Lorena Delgado-Quirós","doi":"10.1007/s11192-024-05034-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this study, the coverage and overlap of retracted publications, retraction notices and withdrawals are compared across seven significant scholarly databases, with the aim to check for discrepancies, pinpoint the causes of those discrepancies, and choose the best product to produce the most accurate picture of retracted literature. Seven scholarly databases were searched to obtain all the retracted publications, retraction notices and withdrawal from 2000. Only web search interfaces were used, excepting in OpenAlex and Scilit. The findings demonstrate that non-selective databases (Dimensions, OpenAlex, Scilit, and The Lens) index a greater amount of retracted literature than do databases that rely their indexation on venue selection (PubMed, Scopus, and WoS). The key factors explaining these discrepancies are the indexation of withdrawals and proceeding articles. Additionally, the high coverage of OpenAlex and Scilit could be explained by the inaccurate labeling of retracted documents in Scopus, Dimensions, and The Lens. 99% of the sample is jointly covered by OpenAlex, Scilit and WoS. The study suggests that research on retracted literature would require querying more than one source and that it should be advisable to accurately identify and label this literature in academic databases.</p>","PeriodicalId":21755,"journal":{"name":"Scientometrics","volume":"207 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientometrics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05034-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this study, the coverage and overlap of retracted publications, retraction notices and withdrawals are compared across seven significant scholarly databases, with the aim to check for discrepancies, pinpoint the causes of those discrepancies, and choose the best product to produce the most accurate picture of retracted literature. Seven scholarly databases were searched to obtain all the retracted publications, retraction notices and withdrawal from 2000. Only web search interfaces were used, excepting in OpenAlex and Scilit. The findings demonstrate that non-selective databases (Dimensions, OpenAlex, Scilit, and The Lens) index a greater amount of retracted literature than do databases that rely their indexation on venue selection (PubMed, Scopus, and WoS). The key factors explaining these discrepancies are the indexation of withdrawals and proceeding articles. Additionally, the high coverage of OpenAlex and Scilit could be explained by the inaccurate labeling of retracted documents in Scopus, Dimensions, and The Lens. 99% of the sample is jointly covered by OpenAlex, Scilit and WoS. The study suggests that research on retracted literature would require querying more than one source and that it should be advisable to accurately identify and label this literature in academic databases.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

七个主要学术数据库对被撤文献的索引：维度、OpenAlex、PubMed、Scilit、Scopus、The Lens 和 Web of Science 的覆盖面比较

在本研究中，我们比较了七个重要学术数据库中被撤稿的出版物、撤稿通知和撤稿的覆盖范围和重叠情况，目的是检查差异，找出造成差异的原因，并选择最佳产品，以最准确地反映被撤稿文献的情况。我们检索了七个学术数据库，以获得 2000 年以来所有被撤稿的出版物、撤稿通知和撤稿情况。除 OpenAlex 和 Scilit 外，只使用了网络搜索界面。研究结果表明，非选择性数据库（Dimensions、OpenAlex、Scilit 和 The Lens）收录的撤稿文献数量多于依赖于地点选择的数据库（PubMed、Scopus 和 WoS）。造成这些差异的关键因素是对撤稿和进行中文章的索引。此外，OpenAlex 和 Scilit 的高覆盖率可能是因为 Scopus、Dimensions 和 The Lens 对撤回文献的不准确标注。99%的样本被 OpenAlex、Scilit 和 WoS 共同覆盖。这项研究表明，对被撤文献的研究需要查询不止一个来源，因此建议在学术数据库中准确识别和标注这些文献。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Scientometrics 管理科学-计算机：跨学科应用

CiteScore

7.20

自引率

17.90%

发文量

351

审稿时长

1.5 months

期刊介绍： Scientometrics aims at publishing original studies, short communications, preliminary reports, review papers, letters to the editor and book reviews on scientometrics. The topics covered are results of research concerned with the quantitative features and characteristics of science. Emphasis is placed on investigations in which the development and mechanism of science are studied by means of (statistical) mathematical methods. The Journal also provides the reader with important up-to-date information about international meetings and events in scientometrics and related fields. Appropriate bibliographic compilations are published as a separate section. Due to its fully interdisciplinary character, Scientometrics is indispensable to research workers and research administrators throughout the world. It provides valuable assistance to librarians and documentalists in central scientific agencies, ministries, research institutes and laboratories. Scientometrics includes the Journal of Research Communication Studies. Consequently its aims and scope cover that of the latter, namely, to bring the results of research investigations together in one place, in such a form that they will be of use not only to the investigators themselves but also to the entrepreneurs and research workers who form the object of these studies.