IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v12y2024i4p43-d1530220.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open Science Alternatives to Scopus and the Web of Science: A Case Study in Regional Resilience

Author

Listed:
  • Irina D. Turgel

    (Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, 620002 Yekaterinburg, Russia)

  • Olga A. Chernova

    (Faculty of Economics, Southern Federal University, 344006 Rostov-on-Don, Russia)

Abstract

The recent years have seen increasing support for open science in academic circles. However, the large number of scientometric databases calls into question the comparability of the search and analysis tools they provide. Using the subject area of regional resilience as an example, in this study, the aim was to analyze the capabilities of widely used databases to serve as alternatives to Scopus and Web of Science in solving research problems. As alternatives, in the present article, the following open, free scientometric databases were considered: AMiner, Wizdom.ai, the Lens, Dimensions, and OpenAlex. Their capabilities were demonstrated for the subject area under study, and the obtained results were compared. The study results showed that alternative databases provide essential data on trends in scientific development. It is noteworthy that they largely replicate the provided data, supplementing and expanding them by using different types of data sources. However, open databases do not guarantee a high quality of materials and exhibit a relatively low level of metadata. Thus, it is premature to abandon the use of Scopus and Web of Science in research activities. Since scientometric databases were developed in different contexts, they are characterized by structural and functional heterogeneity, which complicates their comparison. Therefore, a selective approach should be adopted for the choice of scientometric databases, taking into account financial and other constraints, as well as the specifics of research problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Irina D. Turgel & Olga A. Chernova, 2024. "Open Science Alternatives to Scopus and the Web of Science: A Case Study in Regional Resilience," Publications, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:12:y:2024:i:4:p:43-:d:1530220
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/12/4/43/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/12/4/43/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Correction to: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 907-908, January.
    2. Reggie Raju & Jill Claassen & Kaela De Lillie, 2023. "Social Justice: The Golden Thread in the Openness Movement," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Adeabah, David & Abakah, Emmanuel Joel Aikins & Tiwari, Aviral Kumar & Hammoudeh, Shawkat, 2023. "How far have we come and where should we go after 30+ years of research on Africa's emerging financial markets? A systematic review and a bibliometric network analysis," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    4. Alejandra Manco, 2022. "A Landscape of Open Science Policies Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    5. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 871-906, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    2. Mehdi Toloo & Rouhollah Khodabandelou & Amar Oukil, 2022. "A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Fractional Programming (1965–2020)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-21, May.
    3. Dušan Nikolić & Dragan Ivanović & Lidija Ivanović, 2024. "An open-source tool for merging data from multiple citation databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4573-4595, July.
    4. Basheer Kalash & Sarah Guillou & Lionel Nesta & Michele Pezzoni, 2024. "Does Lab Funding Matter for the Technological Application of Scientific Research? An Empirical Analysis of French Labs," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 153, pages 39-76.
    5. Anting Wang & Mohd Nizam Osman & Megat Al-Imran Yasin & Nurul Ain Mohd Hasan & Ying Cui, 2024. "Tracing Evolution and Communication Dynamics in Chinese Independent Documentary Films (2012-2022): A Systematic Review of Genre, Censorship, Culture, and Distribution," Studies in Media and Communication, Redfame publishing, vol. 12(1), pages 368-381, March.
    6. Elena Andriollo & Alberto Caimo & Laura Secco & Elena Pisani, 2021. "Collaborations in Environmental Initiatives for an Effective “Adaptive Governance” of Social–Ecological Systems: What Existing Literature Suggests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-29, July.
    7. repec:dar:wpaper:132320 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Kelly Gerakoudi-Ventouri, 2022. "Review of studies of blockchain technology effects on the shipping industry," Journal of Shipping and Trade, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Safoora Pitsi & Jon Billsberry & Mary Barrett, 2024. "A Bibliometric Review of Research on Intelligence in Leadership Studies," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 13(5), pages 528-541, October.
    10. DIODATO Dario, 2024. "Handbook of Economic Complexity for Policy," JRC Research Reports JRC138666, Joint Research Centre.
    11. Zhang, Yang & Wang, Yang & Du, Haifeng & Havlin, Shlomo, 2024. "Delayed citation impact of interdisciplinary research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    12. Alejandro Valencia-Arias & Juana Ramírez Dávila & Wilmer Londoño-Celis & Lucia Palacios-Moya & Julio Leyrer Hernández & Erica Agudelo-Ceballos & Hernán Uribe-Bedoya, 2024. "Research Trends in the Use of the Internet of Things in Sustainability Practices: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-23, March.
    13. Nezha Mejjad & Marzia Rovere, 2021. "Understanding the Impacts of Blue Economy Growth on Deep-Sea Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-26, November.
    14. Ruben Tessmann & Ralf Elbert, 2022. "Multi-sided platforms in competitive B2B networks with varying governmental influence – a taxonomy of Port and Cargo Community System business models," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(2), pages 829-872, June.
    15. Huegel, Matthias, 2024. "University scientists’ multiple goals achievement: Social capital and its impact on research performance and research commercialization," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    16. Lia Marchi & Jacopo Gaspari, 2023. "Energy Conservation at Home: A Critical Review on the Role of End-User Behavior," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-22, November.
    17. Steve J. Bickley & Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in the field of economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2055-2084, April.
    18. Joselyne Solórzano & Fernando Morante-Carballo & Néstor Montalván-Burbano & Josué Briones-Bitar & Paúl Carrión-Mero, 2022. "A Systematic Review of the Relationship between Geotechnics and Disasters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-31, October.
    19. Yanan Mo & Kuoti Liao & Junqi Wang, 2024. "Analysis of Current Research in the Field of Sustainable Employment Based on Latent Dirichlet Allocation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-16, May.
    20. Marco Huymajer & Matthias Woegerbauer & Leopold Winkler & Alexandra Mazak-Huemer & Hubert Biedermann, 2022. "An Interdisciplinary Systematic Review on Sustainability in Tunneling—Bibliometrics, Challenges, and Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-33, February.
    21. John List & Matthias Rodemeier & Sutanuka Roy & Gregory Sun, 2022. "Judging Nudging: Understanding the Welfare Effects of Nudges Versus Taxes," Framed Field Experiments 00765, The Field Experiments Website.

    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:gam:jpubli:v:12:y:2024:i:4:p:43-:d:1530220. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.