Dimensions: A Competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?

Dimensions is a partly free scholarly database launched by Digital Science in January 2018. Dimensions includes journal articles and citation counts, making it a potential new source of impact data. This article explores the value of Dimensions from an impact assessment perspective with an examination of Food Science research 2008-2018 and a random sample of 10,000 Scopus articles from 2012. The results include high correlations between citation counts from Scopus and Dimensions (0.96 by narrow field in 2012) as well as similar average counts. Almost all Scopus articles with DOIs were found in Dimensions (97% in 2012). Thus, the scholarly database component of Dimensions seems to be a plausible alternative to Scopus and the Web of Science for general citation analyses and for citation data in support of some types of research evaluations.

[1]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[2]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields? , 2017, Scientometrics.

[3]  Matthew E Falagas,et al.  Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses , 2007, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[4]  Marta Gwinn,et al.  A critical evaluation of the algorithm behind the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) , 2017, PLoS biology.

[5]  Éric Archambault,et al.  Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus , 2009 .

[6]  Martin Szomszor,et al.  Dimensions - A Collaborative Approach to Enhancing Research Discovery , 2018 .

[7]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  More precise methods for national research citation impact comparisons , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[8]  Satu Alakangas,et al.  Microsoft Academic is one year old: the Phoenix is ready to leave the nest , 2017, Scientometrics.

[9]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services , 2013, PloS one.

[10]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation - Review of the Literature , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[11]  C. Chorus,et al.  The practice of strategic journal self-citation: it exists, and should stop , 2015 .

[12]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Users, narcissism and control – tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century , 2012 .

[13]  Adèle Paul-Hus,et al.  The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis , 2015, Scientometrics.

[14]  Nicolás Robinson-García,et al.  The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[15]  Jeffrey Beall,et al.  Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective , 2015, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[16]  E Garfield,et al.  "Science Citation Index"--A New Dimension in Indexing. , 1964, Science.

[17]  Yang Song,et al.  An Overview of Microsoft Academic Service (MAS) and Applications , 2015, WWW.

[18]  Massimo Franceschet,et al.  The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[19]  Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,et al.  Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents? , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[20]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Using Google Scholar in research evaluation of humanities and social science programs: A comparison with Web of Science data , 2016 .

[21]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  A review of the literature on citation impact indicators , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[22]  James Wilsdon.  The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management , 2016 .

[23]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Microsoft Academic Automatic Document Searches: Accuracy for Journal Articles and Suitability for Citation Analysis , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[24]  Martin P. Brändle,et al.  Citation analysis with microsoft academic , 2016, Scientometrics.

[25]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? , 2014, it Inf. Technol..

[26]  George M. Santangelo,et al.  Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level , 2015, bioRxiv.

[27]  Euan A. Adie,et al.  Altmetric: enriching scholarly content with article‐level discussion and metrics , 2013, Learn. Publ..

[28]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations , 2010, J. Informetrics.