Guerrero-Bote Vicente P, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Zaida, Mendoza Abraham, de Moya-Anegón Félix
Departamento de Información y Comunicación, Universidad de Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain.
Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Madrid, Spain.
Front Res Metr Anal. 2021 Jan 22;5:593494. doi: 10.3389/frma.2020.593494. eCollection 2020.
This paper presents a large-scale document-level comparison of two major bibliographic data sources: Scopus and Dimensions. The focus is on the differences in their coverage of documents at two levels of aggregation: by country and by institution. The main goal is to analyze whether Dimensions offers as good new opportunities for bibliometric analysis at the country and institutional levels as it does at the global level. Differences in the completeness and accuracy of citation links are also studied. The results allow a profile of Dimensions to be drawn in terms of its coverage by country and institution. Dimensions' coverage is more than 25% greater than Scopus which is consistent with previous studies. However, the main finding of this study is the lack of affiliation data in a large fraction of Dimensions documents. We 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. This situation mainly affects the possibilities that Dimensions can offer as instruments for carrying out bibliometric analyses at the country and institutional level. Both of these aspects are highly pragmatic considerations for information retrieval and the design of policies for the use of scientific databases in research evaluation.
本文对两个主要的文献数据来源Scopus和Dimensions进行了大规模的文献层面比较。重点在于它们在两个聚合层面（按国家和按机构）对文献覆盖范围的差异。主要目标是分析Dimensions在国家和机构层面是否能像在全球层面一样为文献计量分析提供良好的新机会。还研究了引用链接的完整性和准确性方面的差异。研究结果有助于勾勒出Dimensions在国家和机构覆盖范围方面的概况。Dimensions的覆盖范围比Scopus大25%以上，这与之前的研究一致。然而，本研究的主要发现是Dimensions的大部分文献缺乏机构数据。我们发现Dimensions中近一半的文献与任何所属国家都没有关联，而Scopus中没有此类数据的文献比例要低得多。这种情况主要影响了Dimensions作为在国家和机构层面进行文献计量分析工具的可能性。这两个方面对于信息检索以及研究评估中科学数据库使用政策的设计都是非常实际的考虑因素。
