IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i3d10.1007_s11192-020-03663-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Openness trends in Brazilian citation data: factors related to the use of DOIs

Author

Listed:
  • Rogério Mugnaini

    (University of São Paulo)

  • Grischa Fraumann

    (University of São Paulo
    TIB Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology)

  • Esteban F. Tuesta

    (University of São Paulo)

  • Abel L. Packer

    (SciELO/FAPESP Program)

Abstract

Digital object identifiers (DOIs) are important metadata elements for indexing and interoperability, as well as for bibliometric studies in times of openness. This study analyses the use of DOIs in the cited references of articles by authors from Brazilian institutions, their possible influencing factors and differences among areas of knowledge. It measures the extent to which the citation datasets are open for reuse by others in terms of the availability of DOIs. 226,491 articles were retrieved from Web of Science (2012–2016), making a total of 8,707,120 cited references, 68% of which include DOIs. The results showed that the hard sciences have higher percentages of DOIs in their cited references. The factor type of collaboration showed higher percentages when there is international collaboration, being significantly different from the other categories. However, when the analysis was conducted inside the areas, the international collaboration was found to be different particularly in the soft sciences and a couple of other areas. The articles with DOI attributed, as well as those with mention of research funding, had a significantly higher percentage, even in the interaction with the areas of knowledge. Among the open access routes the green routes showed the highest percentages, followed by golden (DOAJ and other) and Bronze, but green routes articles proved to be not significantly different from those not openly accessible. Finally, the principal collaborating countries also showed the greatest influence on the DOI attribution, with the exception of Peru and South Africa. Our findings provide evidence that studies on the availability and usability of DOIs can assist researchers, by underlining the importance of making greater use of this persistent identifier, as well as to provide consistency to citation analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03663-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03663-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03663-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03663-7?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. Michael Gusenbauer, 2019. "Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 177-214, January.
    2. Vincent Larivière & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Benoit Macaluso & Staša Milojević & Blaise Cronin & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "arXiv E-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(6), pages 1157-1169, June.
    3. Zohreh Zahedi & Rodrigo Costas & Paul Wouters, 2014. "How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1491-1513, November.
    4. Christian Gumpenberger & Johannes Sorz & Martin Wieland & Juan Gorraiz, 2016. "Humanities and social sciences in the bibliometric spotlight – Research output analysis at the University of Vienna and considerations for increasing visibility," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 271-278.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Miguel R. Guevara & Dominik Hartmann & Manuel Aristarán & Marcelo Mendoza & César A. Hidalgo, 2016. "The research space: using career paths to predict the evolution of the research output of individuals, institutions, and nations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1695-1709, December.
    8. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Sven E. Hug, 2018. "Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 427-437, February.
    3. Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1721-1731, December.
    4. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2021. "What affects publications’ popularity on Twitter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9185-9198, November.
    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. Michael Gusenbauer, 2022. "Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2683-2745, May.
    7. Michael Thelwall, 2018. "Can Microsoft Academic be used for citation analysis of preprint archives? The case of the Social Science Research Network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 913-928, May.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Boschma, Ron, 2022. "Do scientific capabilities in specific domains matter for technological diversification in European regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    15. Bogang Jun & Aamena Alshamsi & Jian Gao & Cesar A Hidalgo, 2017. "Relatedness, Knowledge Diffusion, and the Evolution of Bilateral Trade," Papers 1709.05392, arXiv.org.
    16. Citron, Daniel T. & Way, Samuel F., 2018. "Network assembly of scientific communities of varying size and specificity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 181-190.
    17. Diogo Ferraz & Fernanda P. S. Falguera & Enzo B. Mariano & Dominik Hartmann, 2021. "Linking Economic Complexity, Diversification, and Industrial Policy with Sustainable Development: A Structured Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-29, January.
    18. Metwaly Ali Mohamed Eldakar, 2019. "Who reads international Egyptian academic articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley readership categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 105-135, October.
    19. Hötte, Kerstin & Pichler, Anton & Lafond, François, 2021. "The rise of science in low-carbon energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    20. Ron Boschma, 2021. "Designing Smart Specialization Policy: relatedness, unrelatedness, or what?," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2128, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Sep 2021.

    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:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03663-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.