Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMartín-Martín, Alberto
dc.contributor.authorThelwall, Michael
dc.contributor.authorOrduna-Malea, Enrique
dc.contributor.authorDelgado López-Cózar, Emilio
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-25T13:33:59Z
dc.date.available2020-09-25T13:33:59Z
dc.date.issued2020-09-21
dc.identifier.citationMartín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E. and López-Cózar, E.D. (2020) Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4en
dc.identifier.issn0138-9130en
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/623674
dc.descriptionThis is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Springer in Scientometrics on 21/09/2020, available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.en
dc.description.abstractNew sources of citation data have recently become available, such as Microsoft Academic, Dimensions, and the OpenCitations Index of CrossRef open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI). Although these have been compared to the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS), Scopus, or Google Scholar, there is no systematic evidence of their differences across subject categories. In response, this paper investigates 3,073,351 citations found by these six data sources to 2,515 English-language highly-cited documents published in 2006 from 252 subject categories, expanding and updating the largest previous study. Google Scholar found 88% of all citations, many of which were not found by the other sources, and nearly all citations found by the remaining sources (89–94%). A similar pattern held within most subject categories. Microsoft Academic is the second largest overall (60% of all citations), including 82% of Scopus citations and 86% of WoS citations. In most categories, Microsoft Academic found more citations than Scopus and WoS (182 and 223 subject categories, respectively), but had coverage gaps in some areas, such as Physics and some Humanities categories. After Scopus, Dimensions is fourth largest (54% of all citations), including 84% of Scopus citations and 88% of WoS citations. It found more citations than Scopus in 36 categories, more than WoS in 185, and displays some coverage gaps, especially in the Humanities. Following WoS, COCI is the smallest, with 28% of all citations. Google Scholar is still the most comprehensive source. In many subject categories Microsoft Academic and Dimensions are good alternatives to Scopus and WoS in terms of coverage.en
dc.formatapplication/pdfen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSpringer Natureen
dc.relation.urlhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-020-03690-4en
dc.subjectGoogle Scholaren
dc.subjectScopusen
dc.subjectMicrosoft Academicen
dc.subjectDimensionsen
dc.subjectWeb of Scienceen
dc.titleGoogle Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citationsen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.identifier.journalScientometricsen
dc.date.updated2020-09-22T06:11:38Z
dc.date.accepted2020-08-05
rioxxterms.funderUniversity of wolverhamptonen
rioxxterms.identifier.projectUOW25092020MTen
rioxxterms.versionAMen
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2021-09-21en
refterms.dateFCD2020-09-25T13:33:18Z
refterms.versionFCDAM


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Martín-Martín_et_al_Google_Sch ...
Size:
7.021Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/