4.5 Article

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

Journal

SCIENTOMETRICS
Volume 126, Issue 1, Pages 871-906

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4

Keywords

Google Scholar; Microsoft Academic; Scopus; Dimensions; Web of Science; OpenCitations; COCI; CrossRef; Coverage; Citations; Bibliometrics; Citation analysis; Bibliographic databases; Literature reviews

Funding

  1. Medialab UGR (Universidad de Granada)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study analyzed 3,073,351 citations found by six data sources in 252 subject categories, revealing differences in citation coverage among the sources. Google Scholar remains the most comprehensive source, while Microsoft Academic and Dimensions serve as good alternatives to Scopus and WoS in many subject categories.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available