数据集在 Google Scholar、Web of Science、Scopus、Crossref 和 DataCite 中的引文覆盖率比较

IF 3.5 3区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Scientometrics Pub Date : 2024-06-28 DOI:10.1007/s11192-024-05073-5
Irina Gerasimov, Binita KC, Armin Mehrabian, James Acker, Michael P. McGuire
{"title":"数据集在 Google Scholar、Web of Science、Scopus、Crossref 和 DataCite 中的引文覆盖率比较","authors":"Irina Gerasimov, Binita KC, Armin Mehrabian, James Acker, Michael P. McGuire","doi":"10.1007/s11192-024-05073-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":21755,"journal":{"name":"Scientometrics","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of datasets citation coverage in Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Crossref, and DataCite\",\"authors\":\"Irina Gerasimov, Binita KC, Armin Mehrabian, James Acker, Michael P. McGuire\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11192-024-05073-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21755,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientometrics\",\"volume\":\"57 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/s11192-024-05073-5\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientometrics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05073-5","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

摘要

来自遥感、模型和地面观测的地球科学数据迅速增加,凸显了对有效数据管理实践的迫切需求。数据存储库跟踪出处和使用指标,这对确保数据完整性和科学可重复性至关重要。尽管 20 世纪 90 年代末引入的数据集数字对象标识符(DOIs)极大地促进了对数据集创建者的认证并提高了数据集的可发现性(类似于传统的研究引文),但在建立数据集与学术文献的联系方面仍存在相当大的挑战。本研究评估了美国国家航空航天局地球观测系统数据和信息系统(EOSDIS)的数据集在几个主要文献来源(即谷歌学术(GS)、科学网(WoS)、Scopus、Crossref 和 DataCite)中的引用范围,这有助于数据管理人员在选择文献来源时做出明智的决策。我们提供了对引文情况的可靠而全面的了解,这对促进数据管理实践和推动开放科学至关重要。我们的研究搜索并分析了引用与 EOSDIS 数据集相关的约 11,000 个 DOIs 的出版物的书目来源的时间趋势,得出了与 3,000 个数据集 DOIs 相关联的 17,000 条独特的期刊和会议文章、报告和书籍记录。GS 是最全面的来源,而 Crossref 则明显落后于其他主要来源。Crossref 的记录参考显示,数据集 DOI 的缺失和 Crossref Event 数据接口的缺陷可能是其表现不佳的原因。Scopus 在 2020 年之前的表现一直优于 WoS,之后 WoS 开始表现出优势。总之,我们的研究强调了利用多种书目资源进行引文分析的必要性,尤其是在探索数据集与文献的联系方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of datasets citation coverage in Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Crossref, and DataCite

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scientometrics
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.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the wisdom of scholar crowds from the perspective of knowledge diffusion Automatic gender detection: a methodological procedure and recommendations to computationally infer the gender from names with ChatGPT and gender APIs An integrated indicator for evaluating scientific papers: considering academic impact and novelty Measuring hotness transfer of individual papers based on citation relationship Prevalence and characteristics of graphical abstracts in a specialist pharmacology journal
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1