So sánh quy mô lớn các nguồn dữ liệu thư mục: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref và Microsoft Academic

Baas, 2020, Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies, Quantitative Science Studies, 1, 377, 10.1162/qss_a_00019

Bilder, 2019, Underreporting of matched references in Crossref metadata [Blog post, February 5]

Birkle, 2020, Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity, Quantitative Science Studies, 1, 363, 10.1162/qss_a_00018

Bornmann, 2018, Field classification of publications in Dimensions: A first case study testing its reliability and validity, Scientometrics, 117, 637, 10.1007/s11192-018-2855-y

Else, 2018, How I scraped data from Google Scholar, Nature

García-Pérez, 2010, Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar: A case study for the computation of h indices in Psychology, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 2070, 10.1002/asi.21372

Harzing, 2019, Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science?, Scientometrics, 120, 341, 10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y

Heibi, 2019, Crowdsourcing open citations with CROCI – An analysis of the current status of open citations, and a proposal, arXiv:1902.02534

Heibi, 2019, Software review: COCI, the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations, Scientometrics, 121, 1213, 10.1007/s11192-019-03217-6

Hendricks, 2020, Crossref: The sustainable source of community-owned scholarly metadata, Quantitative Science Studies, 1, 414, 10.1162/qss_a_00022

Herzog, 2020, Dimensions: Bringing down barriers between scientometricians and data, Quantitative Science Studies, 1, 387, 10.1162/qss_a_00020

Herzog, 2018, Response to the letter “Field classification of publications in Dimensions: A first case study testing its reliability and validity.”, Scientometrics, 117, 641, 10.1007/s11192-018-2854-z

Hicks, 2015, The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics, Nature, 520, 429, 10.1038/520429a

Hook, 2018, Dimensions: Building context for search and evaluation, Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 3, 23, 10.3389/frma.2018.00023

Huang, 2020, Comparison of bibliographic data sources: Implications for the robustness of university rankings, Quantitative Science Studies, 1, 445

López-Illescas, 2009, Comparing bibliometric country-by-country rankings derived from the Web of Science and Scopus: The effect of poorly cited journals in oncology, Journal of Information Science, 35, 244, 10.1177/0165551508098603

Martín-Martín, 2018, Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A multidisciplinary comparison, Scientometrics, 116, 2175, 10.1007/s11192-018-2820-9

Martín-Martín, 2018, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories, Journal of Informetrics, 12, 1160, 10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002

Martín-Martín, 2020, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations, arXiv:2004.14329

Microsoft Academic, 2019, Microsoft Academic Graph (version 2019-03-22) [Data set]

Mongeon, 2016, The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis, Scientometrics, 106, 213, 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Olensky, 2016, Evaluation of the citation matching algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to the Web of Science, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 2550, 10.1002/asi.23590

Orduña-Malea, 2018, Dimensions: Re-discovering the ecosystem of scientific information, El Profesional de la Información, 27, 420, 10.3145/epi.2018.mar.21

Peroni, 2020, OpenCitations, an infrastructure organization for open scholarship, Quantitative Science Studies, 1, 428, 10.1162/qss_a_00023

Plume, 2020, Advancing responsible research assessment [Blog post, December 16]

Schnell, 2017, Web of Science: The first citation index for data analytics and scientometrics, Research analytics: Boosting university productivity and competitiveness through scientometrics, 15, 10.1201/9781315155890-2

Schotten, 2017, A brief history of Scopus: The world’s largest abstract and citation database of scientific literature, Research analytics: Boosting university productivity and competitiveness through scientometrics, 31, 10.1201/9781315155890-3

Scopus, 2020, Scopus content coverage guide

Singh, 2020, The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis, arXiv:2011.00223

Sinha, 2015, An overview of Microsoft Academic Service (MAS) and applications, Proceedings of the 24th International World Wide Web Conference, 243, 10.1145/2740908.2742839

Valderrama-Zurián, 2015, A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus, Journal of Informetrics, 9, 570, 10.1016/j.joi.2015.05.002

Van Eck, 2017, Accuracy of citation data in Web of Science and Scopus, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, 1087

Van Eck, 2018, Crossref as a new source of citation data: A comparison with Web of Science and Scopus [Blog post, January 17]

Visser, 2020, Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic [Data set], Zenodo

Waltman, 2020, Special issue on bibliographic data sources, Quantitative Science Studies, 1, 360, 10.1162/qss_e_00026

Wang, 2019, A review of Microsoft Academic Services for science of science studies, Frontiers in Big Data, 2, 45, 10.3389/fdata.2019.00045

Wang, 2020, Microsoft Academic Graph: When experts are not enough, Quantitative Science Studies, 1, 396, 10.1162/qss_a_00021

Wang, 2016, Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus, Journal of Informetrics, 10, 347, 10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003