IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v10y2016i1p98-109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in Web of Science and Scopus

Author

Listed:
  • Gorraiz, Juan
  • Melero-Fuentes, David
  • Gumpenberger, Christian
  • Valderrama-Zurián, Juan-Carlos

Abstract

This study aims to shed light on the implementation of the digital object identifier (DOI) in the two most important multidisciplinary databases, namely Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus, within the last decade (2005–2014). The results show a generally increased percentage of items with DOI in all the disciplines in both databases, which provide very similar numbers and trends. While the percentage of citable items with a DOI has already reached 90% in the Sciences and the Social Sciences in 2014, it has remained much lower in the Arts & Humanities, exceeding 50% only since 2013. The observed values for Books and Proceedings are even lower despite the importance of these document types, particularly for the Social Sciences and the Arts & Humanities. The fact that there are still journals with a large number of items still lacking DOIs in 2014 should be alarming for the corresponding editors and should give them reason to enhance the formal quality and visibility of their journals. Finally, scientists are also encouraged to review their publication strategies and to favour publication channels with established DOI assignments.

Suggested Citation

  • Gorraiz, Juan & Melero-Fuentes, David & Gumpenberger, Christian & Valderrama-Zurián, Juan-Carlos, 2016. "Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in Web of Science and Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 98-109.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:10:y:2016:i:1:p:98-109
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157715301176
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian Gumpenberger & María-Antonia Ovalle-Perandones & Juan Gorraiz, 2013. "On the impact of Gold Open Access journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 221-238, July.
    2. Valderrama-Zurián, Juan-Carlos & Aguilar-Moya, Remedios & Melero-Fuentes, David & Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafael, 2015. "A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 570-576.
    3. Stefanie Haustein & Isabella Peters & Judit Bar-Ilan & Jason Priem & Hadas Shema & Jens Terliesner, 2014. "Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1145-1163, November.
    4. Björn Hammarfelt, 2014. "Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1419-1430, November.
    5. Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Philip J. Purnell, 2014. "The power of book reviews: a simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 841-852, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yajie Wang & Alesia Zuccala, 2021. "Scholarly book publishers as publicity agents for SSH titles on Twitter," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4817-4840, June.
    2. Yu, Houqiang & Xiao, Tingting & Xu, Shenmeng & Wang, Yuefen, 2019. "Who posts scientific tweets? An investigation into the productivity, locations, and identities of scientific tweeters," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 841-855.
    3. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    4. Pei-Shan Chi & Juan Gorraiz & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2019. "Comparing capture, usage and citation indicators: an altmetric analysis of journal papers in chemistry disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1461-1473, September.
    5. Junwen Zhu & Guangyuan Hu & Weishu Liu, 2019. "DOI errors and possible solutions for Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 709-718, February.
    6. Christophe Boudry, 2021. "Availability of ORCIDs in publications archived in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science Core Collection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3355-3371, April.
    7. Sven E. Hug & Martin P. Brändle, 2017. "The coverage of Microsoft Academic: analyzing the publication output of a university," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1551-1571, December.
    8. Rogério Mugnaini & Grischa Fraumann & Esteban F. Tuesta & Abel L. Packer, 2021. "Openness trends in Brazilian citation data: factors related to the use of DOIs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2523-2556, March.
    9. Abdelghani Maddi & Lesya Baudoin, 2022. "The quality of the web of science data: a longitudinal study on the completeness of authors-addresses links," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6279-6292, November.
    10. Toluwase Victor Asubiaro & Sodiq Onaolapo, 2023. "A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(7), pages 745-758, July.
    11. Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1721-1731, December.
    12. Alessia Cioffi & Sara Coppini & Arcangelo Massari & Arianna Moretti & Silvio Peroni & Cristian Santini & Nooshin Shahidzadeh Asadi, 2022. "Identifying and correcting invalid citations due to DOI errors in Crossref data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3593-3612, June.
    13. Clemens Blümel & Alexander Schniedermann, 2020. "Studying review articles in scientometrics and beyond: a research agenda," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 711-728, July.
    14. Junwen Zhu & Fang Liu & Weishu Liu, 2019. "The secrets behind Web of Science’s DOI search," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1745-1753, June.
    15. Shuo Xu & Liyuan Hao & Xin An & Dongsheng Zhai & Hongshen Pang, 2019. "Types of DOI errors of cited references in Web of Science with a cleaning method," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1427-1437, September.
    16. Christophe Boudry & Ghislaine Chartron, 2017. "Availability of digital object identifiers in publications archived by PubMed," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1453-1469, March.
    17. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Isidro F. Aguillo, 2020. "Altmetrics of the Open Access Institutional Repositories: a webometrics approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1181-1192, June.
    2. Christophe Boudry & Ghislaine Chartron, 2017. "Availability of digital object identifiers in publications archived by PubMed," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1453-1469, March.
    3. Chieh Liu & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2022. "Exploring the relationships between altmetric counts and citations of papers in different academic fields based on co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4939-4958, August.
    4. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "The open access citation premium may depend on the openness and inclusiveness of the indexing database, but the relationship is controversial because it is ambiguous where the open access boundary lie," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 995-1018, November.
    5. Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh & A. Noorhidawati & A. Abrizah, 2019. "What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature’s books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 521-536, October.
    6. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    7. Maryam Moshtagh & Tahereh Jowkar & Maryam Yaghtin & Hajar Sotudeh, 2023. "The moderating effect of altmetrics on the correlations between single and multi-faceted university ranking systems: the case of THE and QS vs. Nature Index and Leiden," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 761-781, January.
    8. Ni Cheng & Ke Dong, 2018. "Knowledge communication on social media: a case study of Biomedical Science on Baidu Baike," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1749-1770, September.
    9. Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "Alternative metrics in scientometrics: a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 1123-1144, June.
    10. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2449-2469, December.
    11. Ignacio Rodríguez-Rodríguez & José-Víctor Rodríguez & Niloofar Shirvanizadeh & Andrés Ortiz & Domingo-Javier Pardo-Quiles, 2021. "Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Big Data and the Internet of Things to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scientometric Review Using Text Mining," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-29, August.
    12. Olugbenga Oladinrin & Kasun Gomis & Wadu Mesthrige Jayantha & Lovelin Obi & Muhammad Qasim Rana, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Global Scientific Literature on Aging in Place," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, November.
    13. Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Judit Bar-Ilan: information scientist, computer scientist, scientometrician," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1235-1244, December.
    14. Sidra Salam & Aslan Amat Senin, 2022. "A Bibliometric Study on Innovative Behavior Literature (1961–2019)," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(3), pages 21582440221, July.
    15. Yu Liu & Dan Lin & Xiujuan Xu & Shimin Shan & Quan Z. Sheng, 2018. "Multi-views on Nature Index of Chinese academic institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 823-837, March.
    16. Carmen de la Cruz-Lovera & Alberto-Jesus Perea-Moreno & José Luis de la Cruz-Fernández & Francisco G. Montoya & Alfredo Alcayde & Francisco Manzano-Agugliaro, 2019. "Analysis of Research Topics and Scientific Collaborations in Energy Saving Using Bibliometric Techniques and Community Detection," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, May.
    17. Martin Grančay & Tomáš Dudáš & Ladislav Mura, 2022. "Revealed comparative advantages in academic publishing of “old” and “new” European Union Member States 1998–2018," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1247-1271, March.
    18. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 351-360, July.
    19. Yan, Weiwei & Zhang, Yin, 2018. "Research universities on the ResearchGate social networking site: An examination of institutional differences, research activity level, and social networks formed," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 385-400.
    20. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-Garcia & Juan Gorraiz, 2017. "Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1371-1384, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:10:y:2016:i:1:p:98-109. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.