[2109.13640] Measuring Research Information Citizenship Across ORCID Practice

Abstract:  Over the past 10 years stakeholders across the scholarly communications community have invested significantly not only to increase the adoption of ORCID adoption by researchers, but also to build the the broader infrastructures that are needed both to support ORCID and to benefit from it. These parallel efforts have fostered the emergence of “research information citizenry”, which comprises, but is not limited to, researchers, publishers, funders, and institutions. This paper takes a scientometric approach to investigating how effectively ORCID roles and responsibilities within this citizenry have been adopted. Focusing specifically on researchers, publishers, and funders, ORCID behaviours are measured against the approximated research world represented by the Dimensions dataset.

 

Data sources and their effects on the measurement of open access. Comparing Dimensions with the Web of Science

With the amount of open access (OA) mandates at the funder and institution level growing, the accurate  measurement of OA publishing is an important policy question. Existing studies have provided estimates of the prevalence of OA publications ranging from 27.9% to 53.7%, depending on the data source and period of investigation. This paper aims at providing a comparison of the proportion of OA publishing as represented in two bibliometric databases, Web of Science (WoS) and Dimensions, and assess how it affects the measurement of OA across different countries. Results show that publications indexed in Dimensions have a higher percentage of OA than those indexed by the WoS, especially for publications from outside North America and Europe. The paper concludes with a discussion of the cause and consequences of these differences, motivating for the use of more inclusive databases when examining OA, especially for publications beyond North America and Europe.

The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis | SpringerLink

Abstract:  Traditionally, Web of Science and Scopus have been the two most widely used databases for bibliometric analyses. However, during the last few years some new scholarly databases, such as Dimensions, have come up. Several previous studies have compared different databases, either through a direct comparison of article coverage or by comparing the citations across the databases. This article aims to present a comparative analysis of the journal coverage of the three databases (Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions), with the objective to describe, understand and visualize the differences in them. The most recent master journal lists of the three databases is used for analysis. 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. About 99.11% and 96.61% of the journals indexed in Web of Science are also indexed in Scopus and Dimensions, respectively. Scopus has 96.42% of its indexed journals also covered by Dimensions. Dimensions database has the most exhaustive journal coverage, with 82.22% more journals than Web of Science and 48.17% more journals than Scopus. This article also analysed the research outputs for 20 selected countries for the 2010–2018 period, as indexed in the three databases, and identified database-induced variations in research output volume, rank, global share and subject area composition for different countries. It is found that there are clearly visible variations in the research output from different countries in the three databases, along with differential coverage of different subject areas by the three databases. The analytical study provides an informative and practically useful picture of the journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions databases.

 

Open Access surpasses subscription publication globally for the first time | Dimensions

“In the vein of keeping things moving, the Dimensions team has introduced many new features over the last few years. Most recently, they have updated the Open Access classifications in Dimensions and introduced some additional fields that some of you may find helpful.

The Open Access data in Dimensions is sourced from our colleagues at Unpaywall.  When we first launched Dimensions, Unpaywall was almost as new as we were, but in the meanwhile, both Unpaywall and Dimensions have moved on. The new release of Dimensions now tracks the Unpaywall OA classifications.  This means that the filters in Dimensions should be more consistent and easier to understand – we now have: Green, Bronze, Gold, Hybrid, All OA and Closed.  Of course, all the Open Access filters are available in the free version of Dimensions as well.

While we have seen the percentage of OA increasing rapidly in recent years, especially in countries like China, Germany and the UK, it was not until 2020 that more outputs were published through Open Access channels than traditional subscription channels globally….”

How PLOS uses Dimensions to validate next generation Open Access agreements | Dimensions

“While there are few, if any, organizations that can claim to have perfect data, the goal should undoubtedly be to strive for a level that is as good as possible. “Data underpins and supports the discussions, the agreements and of course the metrics for success following an agreement,” says Sara. She continues, “at PLOS, we combine data from our own internal sources together with external data sources like Dimensions – which give us the crucial, broader view of the market place outside of PLOS alone.”

How does Dimensions support PLOS? “PLOS relies on Dimensions for baseline data about institutions and their funding sources for agreement discussions but also for internal business analytics,” notes Sara. She adds,  Dimensions Analytics is particularly easy to use for non-analysts like myself who want to get in, get a specific question answered (like who is the most frequent funder of a  specific country or institution), and get out quickly.” PLOS understands that subject matter experts need to dedicate their time to more significant impact analysis tasks.  Accessing a database like Dimensions Analytics that already provides analytical views – layered on top of the data itself – means that many questions can be answered by the PLOS team at all levels. …”

How PLOS uses Dimensions to validate next generation Open Access agreements | Dimensions

“While there are few, if any, organizations that can claim to have perfect data, the goal should undoubtedly be to strive for a level that is as good as possible. “Data underpins and supports the discussions, the agreements and of course the metrics for success following an agreement,” says Sara. She continues, “at PLOS, we combine data from our own internal sources together with external data sources like Dimensions – which give us the crucial, broader view of the market place outside of PLOS alone.”

How does Dimensions support PLOS? “PLOS relies on Dimensions for baseline data about institutions and their funding sources for agreement discussions but also for internal business analytics,” notes Sara. She adds,  Dimensions Analytics is particularly easy to use for non-analysts like myself who want to get in, get a specific question answered (like who is the most frequent funder of a  specific country or institution), and get out quickly.” PLOS understands that subject matter experts need to dedicate their time to more significant impact analysis tasks.  Accessing a database like Dimensions Analytics that already provides analytical views – layered on top of the data itself – means that many questions can be answered by the PLOS team at all levels. …”

Open Access and Altmetrics in the pandemic age: Forescast analysis on COVID-19 literature | bioRxiv

Abstract:  We present an analysis on the uptake of open access on COVID-19 related literature as well as the social media attention they gather when compared with non OA papers. We use a dataset of publications curated by Dimensions and analyze articles and preprints. Our sample includes 11,686 publications of which 67.5% are openly accessible. OA publications tend to receive the largest share of social media attention as measured by the Altmetric Attention Score. 37.6% of OA publications are bronze, which means toll journals are providing free access. MedRxiv contributes to 36.3% of documents in repositories but papers in BiorXiv exhibit on average higher AAS. We predict the growth of COVID-19 literature in the following 30 days estimating ARIMA models for the overall publications set, OA vs. non OA and by location of the document (repository vs. journal). We estimate that COVID-19 publications will double in the next 20 days, but non OA publications will grow at a higher rate than OA publications. We conclude by discussing the implications of such findings on the dissemination and communication of research findings to mitigate the coronavirus outbreak.

 

Research Square Partners with Dimensions to Provide Citation Data on Preprints | Research Square

” Research Square, the company behind the world’s fastest-growing preprint platform, is partnering with Dimensions to provide early citation data on preprints. The Dimensions Badge will now display on all Research Square preprints that have been cited and will provide 4 different types of data: the total citations, most recent citations, Field Citation Ratio (FCR), and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR)….”

Huge Covid-19 output prompting ‘sea change’ in access to research | Times Higher Education (THE)

“The Covid-19 crisis is leading to a “sea change” in the way that researchers are collating and analysing research in a bid to keep up with the “phenomenal” growth in scholarship on the topic, experts have suggested.

According to one search portal for coronavirus research, as of 3 April more than 6,000 papers, including preprints, have been published on the topic and related areas since the beginning of the year….

He added that the fact that many publishers were making Covid-19 research open access also meant that scholars could get around the overwhelming nature of dealing with such a vast amount of information by using sophisticated search techniques such as text mining….”

Dimensions COVID-19 publications, data sets, clinical trials – updated daily – Google Sheets

“At Digital Science, we want to support the global research effort to manage and minimise the impact of COVID-19. For researchers, early knowledge and access to research being carried out and published is critical. In order to facilitate this, we are able to free people from the constraints of specific applications and platforms by providing all relevant content on COVID-19 in Dimensions as a single export file, updated daily, to make sharing and distributing this research information easier….”

Digital Science and the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics join forces to provide ISSI members with free access to Dimensions and Altmetric data  – Digital Science

“Digital Science, a leader in scholarly technology, is pleased to announce a collaboration with the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) that will give ISSI members enhanced access to Dimensions and Altmetric data for scientometric research.

ISSI is an international association of scholars and professionals active in the interdisciplinary study science of science, science communication, and science policy. The ISSI community advances the boundaries of quantitative science studies, from theoretical, empirical, and practical perspectives.

Starting on October 1 2019, ISSI members will formally be invited to apply for no-cost access to Altmetric and Dimensions web tools and APIs. A committee of ISSI members will provide expert assessment of researchers’ applications and guidance on using Altmetric and Dimensions in their research.

This partnership builds upon Altmetric and Dimensions’ existing no-cost data sharing programs, which are currently open to all researchers conducting non-commercial scientometric research, while providing ISSI members with additional expert advice on early-stage research….”

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

Abstract:  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 commu-nity, there are as yet very few studies that have investigated the coverage of Crossref or Dimensions. To address this gap, this brief letter assesses Crossref and Dimensions cover-age in comparison to Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science through a detailed investigation of the full publication and citation record of a single academic, as well as six top journals in Business & Economics. Overall, this first small-scale study suggests that, when compared to Scopus and the Web of Science, Crossref and Dimensions have a similar or better coverage for both publications and citations, but a substantively lower coverage than Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic. If our find-ings can be confirmed by larger-scale studies, Crossref and Dimensions might serve as good alternatives to Scopus and the Web of Science for both literature reviews and citation analysis. However, Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic maintain their position as the most comprehensive free sources for publication and citation data