Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic

By Martijn S. Visser, Nees Jan van Eck, Ludo Waltman. Quantitative Science Studies, 2020

780 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present a large-scale comparison of five multidisciplinary bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. The comparison considers scientific documents from the period 2008–2017 covered by these data sources. Scopus is compared in a pairwise manner with each of the other data sources. We first analyze differences between the data sources in the coverage of documents, focusing for instance on differences over time, differences per document type, and differences per discipline. We then study differences in the completeness and accuracy of citation links. Based on our analysis, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the different data sources. We emphasize the importance of combining a comprehensive coverage of the scientific literature with a flexible set of filters for making selections of the literature.

Subfields: Information Systems, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e084f4021f30c483564dcccc29d1230ab213ce70

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems

  1. Mike Thelwall
  2. Neal R Haddaway
  3. Saif M. Mohammad
  4. Maite Taboada
  5. Raminta Pranckute

In Statistics and Probability

  1. Enrique Orduña-Malea
  2. Emilio Delgado López-Cózar
  3. Alberto Mart'in-Mart'in
  4. Mike Thelwall
  5. Neal R Haddaway
  6. Saif M. Mohammad
  7. Raminta Pranckute
  8. Andrew Kirby

Citations in the corpus