The prevalence and impact of university affiliation discrepancies between four bibliographic databases—Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, and Microsoft Academic

Purnell, Phil

doi:10.1162/qss_a_00175

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scopus is the largest database that includes abstracts to literature citations that can be searched and organized based on the needs of researchers (Henriquez et al, 2022;Stefanis et al, 2022;Thelwall & Sud, 2022). Scopus is under the auspices of Elsevier (Purnell, 2022;Caputo & Kargina, 2022). In addition to bibliometric studies, this research also uses literature review.…”

Section: Research Methods General Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Top 100 Cited Research of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in Education From 2012 to 2021

Pristianti

2022

Int. J. Curr. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this research is to analyze the trends and future research opportunities related to confirmatory factor analysis in education. This research uses a descriptive bibliometric analysis and literature review to determine research trends. The data in this research used the Scopus database during 2012-2021. Data in form .CSV was analyzed using Ms. Excel and data in form .RIS was analyzed using VOSviewer. The conclusion from this research are the trend of research on this topic has increased every year in the last ten years. The most widely used keyword is confirmatory factor analysis. Research related to CFA in education has a wide and good opportunity to be carried out for several reasons including: (1) the trend shows a good graph and continues to increase; (2) the number of citations per paper per year shows a number with a high average; (3) From many studies, it is stated that CFA has a contribution in educational research. For future research, we can focus on discussing CFA in a multidisciplinary manner or discussing CFA trends in education using databases other than Scopus.

show abstract

Section: Research Methods General Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Top 100 Cited Research of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in Education From 2012 to 2021

Pristianti

2022

Int. J. Curr. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The institution matching in this study relies on Scopus Affiliation Identifier that assigns an 8-digit AFID to each institution and links variants to the main AFID. Institutional disambiguation is very difficult and up to one in five publications can have discrepancies in author affiliations between the major bibliographic databases [25]. Scopus definitely has room for improvement as is the case for other bibliographic databases [25,26].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Research Fields Through Institutional Contributions to Academic Journals

Frandsen

Nicolaisen²

2022

Linking Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic journals are vehicles for the dissemination and sharing of science. They can form the basis in digital libraries for an exploration of a research field. Bibliometric journal studies have frequently taken the author as the focus of study when researching the activity of research in a field, and more seldom the affiliation (research institutions, universities, etc.). In this study, institutional contributions to ten library and information journals are explored using measures that have previously been employed in author studies. The so-called continuants, movers, newcomers and transients are used to analyse the data. The results show that there are great differences across journals when it comes to the distribution of institutions and their contributions to the journals under study. Some journals have many institutions contributing regularly. Others are characterized by many institutions contributing infrequently or rarely. The implications for exploring research fields in digital libraries are considered.

show abstract

“…Guerrero‐Bote et al (2021) compared Scopus and Dimensions at country and organizational level, finding that Dimensions lacked affiliation data in more than half of the publications. Finally, Purnell (2022) showed that large databases such as Dimensions and Microsoft Academic have more affiliation discrepancies than Scopus or Web of Science.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are these publications missing? Uncovering the reasons behind the exclusion of documents in free‐access scholarly databases

Delgado‐Quirós,

Aguillo,

Martín‐Martín

et al. 2023

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyses the coverage of seven free‐access bibliographic databases (Crossref, Dimensions—non‐subscription version, Google Scholar, Lens, Microsoft Academic, Scilit, and Semantic Scholar) to identify the potential reasons that might cause the exclusion of scholarly documents and how they could influence coverage. To do this, 116 k randomly selected bibliographic records from Crossref were used as a baseline. API endpoints and web scraping were used to query each database. The results show that coverage differences are mainly caused by the way each service builds their databases. While classic bibliographic databases ingest almost the exact same content from Crossref (Lens and Scilit miss 0.1% and 0.2% of the records, respectively), academic search engines present lower coverage (Google Scholar does not find: 9.8%, Semantic Scholar: 10%, and Microsoft Academic: 12%). Coverage differences are mainly attributed to external factors, such as web accessibility and robot exclusion policies (39.2%–46%), and internal requirements that exclude secondary content (6.5%–11.6%). In the case of Dimensions, the only classic bibliographic database with the lowest coverage (7.6%), internal selection criteria such as the indexation of full books instead of book chapters (65%) and the exclusion of secondary content (15%) are the main motives of missing publications.

show abstract

The prevalence and impact of university affiliation discrepancies between four bibliographic databases—Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, and Microsoft Academic

Cited by 13 publications

References 29 publications

Top 100 Cited Research of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in Education From 2012 to 2021

Top 100 Cited Research of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in Education From 2012 to 2021

Exploring Research Fields Through Institutional Contributions to Academic Journals

Why are these publications missing? Uncovering the reasons behind the exclusion of documents in free‐access scholarly databases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About