Dimensionsre-discovering the ecosystem of scientific information

  1. Enrique Orduña-Malea 1
  2. Emilio Delgado-López-Cózar 2
  1. 1 Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
    info

    Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01460j859

  2. 2 Universidad de Granada
    info

    Universidad de Granada

    Granada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04njjy449

Revista:
El profesional de la información

ISSN: 1386-6710,  1699-2407

Año de publicación: 2018

Título del ejemplar: Indicadores I

Volumen: 27

Número: 2

Páginas: 420-431

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3145/EPI.2018.MAR.21 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: El profesional de la información

Resumen

The overarching aim of this work is to provide a detailed description of the free version of Dimensions (new bibliographic database produced by Digital Science and launched in January 2018). To do this, the work is divided into two differentiated blocks. First, its characteristics, operation, and features are described, focusing on its main strengths and weaknesses. Secondly, an analysis of its coverage is carried out (comparing it against Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus and Google Scholar) in order to determine whether the bibliometric indicators offered by Dimensions have an order of magnitude significant enough to be used. To this end, an analysis is carried out at three levels: journals (sample of 20 publications in ‘Library & Information Science’), documents (276 articles published by the Journal of informetrics between 2013 and 2015), and authors (28 people awarded with the Derek de Solla Price prize). Preliminary results indicate that Dimensions has coverage of the recent literature superior to Scopus, although inferior to Google Scholar. With regard to the number of citations received, Dimensions offers slightly lower figures than Scopus. Despite this, the number of citations in Dimensions exhibits a strong correlation with Scopus and somewhat less (although still significant) with Google Scholar. For this reason, it is concluded that Dimensions is an alternative for carrying out citation studies, able to rival Scopus (greater coverage and free of charge) and Google Scholar (greater functionalities for the treatment and data export).

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Costas, Rodrigo; Zahedi, Zohreh; Wouters, Paul (2015). “Do ‘altmetrics’ correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective”. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 66, n. 10, pp. 2003-2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23309
  • Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio; Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Martín-Martín, Alberto; Ayllón, Juan M. (2017). “Google Scholar: the big data bibliographic tool”. En: Cantú-Ortiz, Félix (ed.). Research analytics: boosting university productivity and competitiveness through scientometrics. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press (Taylor & Francis), pp. 59-80. ISBN: 978 1 498785426
  • Martín-Martín, Alberto; Ayllón, Juan M.; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio; Orduña-Malea, Enrique (2015). “Nature’s Top 100 re-revisited”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 66, n. 12, pp. 2714-2714. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23570
  • Martín-Martín, Alberto; Orduna-Malea, Enrique; Ayllón, Juan M.; Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio (2016). “A two-sided academic landscape: snapshot of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar (1950-2013)”. Revista española de documentación científica, v. 39, n. 4, e149. http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2016.4.1405
  • McShea, Jo (2018). “Dimensions – a game-changing product launch from Digital”. Outsell. https://figshare.com/s/68dcc69f3fe6189098bb
  • Mori, Andres; Taylor, Mike (2018). Dimensions metrics API reference & getting started. Digital Science & Research solutions. https://figshare.com/s/3c8f0284e8e51718c1b2
  • Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Ayllón, Juan M.; Martín-Martín, Alberto; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2015). “Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar”. Scientometrics, v. 104, n. 3, pp. 931-949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6
  • Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Martín-Martín, Alberto; Ayllón, Juan M.; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2016). La revolución Google Scholar: destapando la tapa de Pandora académica. Granada: UNE. ISBN: 978 84 33859419
  • Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2018). “Viva la competencia! Nuevas dimensiones para la búsqueda y evaluación de la información científica”. Anuario ThinkEPI, v. 12 (in press). https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/ThinkEPI/index
  • Schonfeld, Roger C. (2018). “A new citation database launches today: Digital Science’s Dimensions”. The scholarly kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/01/15/newcitation-database-dimensions
  • Thelwall, Mike (2018). “Dimensions: a competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?”. Journal of informetrics, v. 12, n. 2, pp. 430-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.006
  • Thelwall, Mike; Haustein, Stefanie; Larivière, Vincent; Sugimoto, Cassidy R. (2013). “Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services”. PloS one, v. 8, n. 5, e64841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.00648
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet