Comparison of datasets citation coverage in Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Crossref, and DataCite

Irina Gerasimov (), Binita Kc, Armin Mehrabian, James Acker and Michael P. McGuire
Additional contact information
Irina Gerasimov: ADNET Systems, Inc
Binita Kc: ADNET Systems, Inc
Armin Mehrabian: ADNET Systems, Inc
James Acker: ADNET Systems, Inc
Michael P. McGuire: Towson University

Scientometrics, 2024, vol. 129, issue 7, No 4, 3704 pages

Abstract: Abstract The rapid increase of Earth science data from remote sensing, models, and ground-based observations highlights an urgent need for effective data management practices. Data repositories track provenance and usage metrics which are crucial for ensuring data integrity and scientific reproducibility. Although the introduction of Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for datasets in the late 1990s has significantly aided in crediting creators and enhancing dataset discoverability (akin to traditional research citations), considerable challenges persist in establishing linkage of datasets used with scholarly documents. This study evaluates the citation coverage of datasets from NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) across several major bibliographic sources ‒ namely Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Crossref, and DataCite—which helps data managers in making informed decisions when selecting bibliographic sources. We provide a robust and comprehensive understanding of the citation landscape, crucial for advancing data management practices and advancing open science. Our study searched and analyzed temporal trends across the bibliographic sources for publications that cite approximately 11,000 DOIs associated with EOSDIS datasets, yielding 17,000 unique journal and conference articles, reports, and book records linked to 3,000 dataset DOIs. GS emerged as the most comprehensive source while Crossref lagged significantly behind the other major sources. Crossref’s record references revealed that the absence of dataset DOIs and shortcomings in the Crossref Event data interface likely contributed to its underperformance. Scopus initially outperformed WoS until 2020, after which WoS began to show superior performance. Overall, our study underscores the necessity of utilizing multiple bibliographic sources for citation analysis, particularly for exploring dataset-to-document connections.

Keywords: Dataset citation; DOI; Open science; Scientific impact; Bibliographic databases; Google Scholar; Web of Science; Scopus; Crossref; COCI; DataCite; EOSDIS (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05073-5 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05073-5

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05073-5

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().