IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v19y2025i3s1751157725000495.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do OpenCitations and Dimensions serve as an alternative to Web of Science for calculating disruption indexes?

Author

Listed:
  • Xu, Shuo
  • Wang, Congcong
  • An, Xin
  • Deng, Yunkang
  • Liu, Jianhua

Abstract

As open access repositories become more prevalent worldwide, scholarly interests in comparative analysis of bibliographic databases are on the rise. Despite this, there is a remarkable scarcity of empirical studies evaluating the efficacy of open and restricted access databases as viable alternatives to traditional closed access models. This study employs the Disruption Index (DI) to analyze three bibliographic databases (WoS, Dimensions, and OpenCitations) across four research fields: Synthetic Biology, Astronomy & Astrophysics as established fields, and Blockchain-based Information System Management and Socio-Economic Impacts of Biological Invasions as emerging ones. After extensive experiments, three main findings are observed as follows. (1) The articles with higher citation counts typically exhibit higher DI values across all fields. (2) The WoS and Dimensions consistently demonstrate closer alignment across established and emerging fields. More missing citations in the OpenCitations lead to significant deviations from the WoS in term of DI values. (3) Compared to the OpenCitations, the Dimensions emerges as a superior alternative to the WoS to some extent.

Suggested Citation

  • Xu, Shuo & Wang, Congcong & An, Xin & Deng, Yunkang & Liu, Jianhua, 2025. "Do OpenCitations and Dimensions serve as an alternative to Web of Science for calculating disruption indexes?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:19:y:2025:i:3:s1751157725000495
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101685
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157725000495
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2025.101685?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

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:19:y:2025:i:3:s1751157725000495. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.