Item history (bjohas, Sat Apr 17 2021 20:32:08 GMT+0100 (BST))

TY - JOUR
TI - Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations
AU - Martín-Martín, Alberto
AU - Thelwall, Mike
AU - Orduna-Malea, Enrique
AU - López-Cózar, Emilio Delgado
T2 - Scientometrics
DA - 2020///
PY - 2020
DP - Google Scholar
SP - 1
EP - 36
ST - Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI
L2 - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
KW - ⛔ No DOI found
ER -

TY - JOUR
TI - Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations' COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations
AU - Martín-Martín, Alberto
AU - Thelwall, Mike
AU - Orduna-Malea, Enrique
AU - López-Cózar, Emilio Delgado
T2 - Scientometrics
AB - New 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 (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 Web of Science 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.
DA - 2021/01//
PY - 2021
DO - 10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
DP - arXiv.org
VL - 126
IS - 1
SP - 871
EP - 906
J2 - Scientometrics
SN - 0138-9130, 1588-2861
ST - Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations' COCI
UR - http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14329
Y2 - 2021/04/17/19:23:46
L1 - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.14329.pdf
L2 - https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14329
KW - Computer Science - Digital Libraries
ER -

TY - JOUR
TI - Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations
AU - Martín-Martín, Alberto
AU - Thelwall, Mike
AU - Orduna-Malea, Enrique
AU - Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio
T2 - Scientometrics
AB - New 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.
DA - 2021/01/01/
PY - 2021
DO - 10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
DP - Springer Link
VL - 126
IS - 1
SP - 871
EP - 906
J2 - Scientometrics
LA - en
SN - 1588-2861
ST - Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI
UR - https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
Y2 - 2021/04/17/19:24:14
L1 - https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11192-020-03690-4.pdf
ER -

group: 2129771

itemKey: XUN8HY6M

itemKeyOld: IWZPRDY7, Z9YDWKR6

item.extra: arXiv: 2004.14329

itemOLD.extra: Publisher: Springer
itemOLD.extra:arXiv: 2004.14329

Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations

Citations by Year

Citations by Country Focus

Citing Resources

Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations

Citations by Year

Citations by Country Focus

Citing Resources