Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMartín Martín, Alberto 
dc.contributor.authorThelwall, Mike
dc.contributor.authorOrduna-Malea, Enrique
dc.contributor.authorDelgado López-Cózar, Emilio 
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-02T13:07:18Z
dc.date.available2021-02-02T13:07:18Z
dc.date.issued2020-09-21
dc.identifier.citationMartín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics, 126(1), 871-906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10481/66233
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.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipWe thank Medialab UGR (Universidad de Granada) for providing funding to cover the cost of hosting the interactive web application created to explore the data used in this study (https://albertomartin.shinyapps.io/citation_overlap_2019/).es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherSpringeres_ES
dc.subjectGoogle Scholares_ES
dc.subjectMicrosoft Academices_ES
dc.subjectScopuses_ES
dc.subjectDimensionses_ES
dc.subjectWeb of Sciencees_ES
dc.subjectOpenCitationses_ES
dc.subjectCOCIes_ES
dc.subjectCrossRefes_ES
dc.subjectCoveragees_ES
dc.subjectCitations es_ES
dc.subjectBibliometrics es_ES
dc.subjectCitation Analysises_ES
dc.subjectBibliographic databaseses_ES
dc.subjectLiterature Reviewses_ES
dc.titleGoogle Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citationses_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersiones_ES


Files in this item

[PDF]

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record