Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science?

@article{Harzing2019TwoNK,
  title={Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science?},
  author={Anne-Wil Harzing},
  journal={Scientometrics},
  year={2019},
  volume={120},
  pages={341-349}
}
In the last 3 years, several new (free) sources for academic publication and citation data have joined the now well-established Google Scholar, complementing the two traditional commercial data sources: Scopus and the Web of Science. The most important of these new data sources are Microsoft Academic (2016), Crossref (2017) and Dimensions (2018). Whereas Microsoft Academic has received some attention from the bibliometric community, there are as yet very few studies that have investigated the… 

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

TLDR
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.

The Journal Coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A Comparative Analysis

TLDR
The results indicate that the databases have significantly different journal coverage, with the Web of Science being most selective and Dimensions being the most exhaustive.

Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic

TLDR
A large-scale comparison of five multidisciplinary bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic highlights the importance of combining a comprehensive coverage of the scientific literature with a flexible set of filters for making selections of the literature.

From indexation policies through citation networks to normalized citation impacts: Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions as varying resonance chambers

TLDR
It is concluded that the databases do present structurally different perspectives, although Scopus and Dimensions with their additional circle of applied research vary more from the more base research-focused WoS than they do from one another.

Comparative Analysis of the Bibliographic Data Sources Dimensions and Scopus: An Approach at the Country and Institutional Levels

TLDR
It is found that close to half of all documents in Dimensions are not associated with any country of affiliation while the proportion of documents without this data in Scopus is much lower, which affects the possibilities that Dimensions can offer as instruments for carrying out bibliometric analyses at the country and institutional level.

Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today's Academic World

TLDR
An all-inclusive description of the two main bibliographic DBs by gathering the findings that are presented in the most recent literature and information provided by the owners of the DBs at one place is provided.

Assessing the publication impact using citation data from both Scopus and WoS databases: an approach validated in 15 research fields

TLDR
This study increased the reliability of its previous conclusions that the percentile rank can be used as a citation database-normalization, and revealed a substantial concordance between percentile ranks of papers indexed in these two databases in all the research fields studied.

Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies: A fifteen-year bibliometric quest for a bigger impact

To assess scientific progress from global to author levels, a large body of bibliometric studies could be found in many fields but relatively scarcer in the realm of language and linguistic studies,

Using single impact metrics to assess research in business and economics: why institutions should use multi-criteria systems for assessing research

  • S. Olavarrieta
  • Business, Economics
    Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science
  • 2022
PurposeDespite the general recommendation of using a combination of multiple criteria for research assessment and faculty promotion decisions, the raise of quantitative indicators is generating an

Thirty years of TEFLIN Journal: A bibliometric portrait through the lens of Microsoft Academic

TLDR
This study exhibits a bibliometric portrait of the TEFLIN Journal during its 30year journey between the commitment to competence and the quest for higher impact.
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 20 REFERENCES

Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

TLDR
A longitudinal comparison of eight data points between 2013 and 2015 shows a consistent and reasonably stable quarterly growth for both publications and citations across the three databases, suggesting that all three databases provide sufficient stability of coverage to be used for more detailed cross-disciplinary comparisons.

Microsoft Academic (Search): a Phoenix arisen from the ashes?

TLDR
Overall, this first small-scale case study suggests that the new incarnation of Microsoft Academic presents us with an excellent alternative for citation analysis, and might well turn out to combine the advantages of broader coverage, as displayed by Google Scholar, with the disadvantages of a more structured approach to data presentation, typical of Scopus and the Web of Science.

Microsoft Academic: is the phoenix getting wings?

TLDR
It is concluded that the Microsoft Academic Phoenix is undeniably growing wings; it might be ready to fly off and start its adult life in the field of research evaluation soon.

Dimensions: A Competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?

Dimensions: re-discovering the ecosystem of scientific information

TLDR
It is concluded that Dimensions is an alternative for carrying out citation studies, being able to rival Scopus (Greater coverage and free of charge) and with Google Scholar (greater functionalities for the treatment and data export).

Microsoft Academic is one year old: the Phoenix is ready to leave the nest

TLDR
It is suggested that, only one year after its re-launch, MA is rapidly become the data source of choice; it appears to be combining the comprehensive coverage across disciplines, displayed by GS, with the more structured approach to data presentation, typical of Scopus and WoS.

The coverage of Microsoft Academic: analyzing the publication output of a university

TLDR
It is concluded that MA is on the verge of becoming a bibliometric superpower and shows biases similar to Scopus and WoS with regard to the coverage of the humanities, non-English publications, and open-access publications.

Citation analysis with microsoft academic

TLDR
It is postulated that Microsoft Academic has the potential to be used for full-fledged bibliometric analyses, and structured and rich metadata is found, which facilitates data retrieval, handling and processing.