Prospective Capabilities of the Dimensions Information Platform

Capa

Citar

Texto integral

Resumo

The article provides an analysis of the capabilities of the Dimensions platform as an information product, which in recent years has increasingly been considered as an alternative source of information for performing bibliometric research. This resource has attracted the attention of not only foreign researchers. Some Russian studies are also carried out today using its functionality. The evaluation of the search and analytical capabilities of the free version of the database is conducted based on studying the topic “Altmetrics”. The trends in the development of altmetric research are studied, the authors and teams of authors who are developing these areas are identified and the analytical capabilities of the resource are characterized in the form of a visualized assessment of search results. The article also gives attention to paid services based on artificial intelligence created by Digital Science (Research GPT, AI Summarization, API for import, etc.). The author considers the general source base of the platform and its main functions. Statistics of document types are presented. It has been found out that articles currently make up 80% of the total volume of documents. It is concluded that the free version of Dimensions is not suitable for all tasks when conducting a bibliometric analysis; in particular, the use of this version will not allow for a comprehensive description of the development of research areas in relation to different countries.

Sobre autores

Olga Udartseva

State Public Scientific Technological Library SB RAS

Email: udartseva@spsl.nsc.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-6491-0412
Código SPIN: 8692-7340
Researcher ID: I-9589-2018
Candidate of Pedagogy, Senior Researcher, Department of Scientific Research of Open Science Novosibirsk, Russia

Bibliografia

  1. Гуреев В. Н., Ильичёва И. Ю., Мазов Н. А. Профили авторов и организаций в информационных системах Dimensions и Lens: исследование возможностей // Научные и технические библиотеки. 2023. № 10. С. 138–170. doi: 10.33186/1027-3689-2023-10-138-170. EDN GSXDZS.
  2. Visser M. S., van Eck N. J., Waltman L. Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic // Quantitative Science Studies. 2021. Vol. 2, № 1. P. 20–41. doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00112.
  3. Чванова М. С., Киселёва И. А., Подлесный Д. В. Международный опыт интернет-социализации молодёжи и их профессионально-ориентированного общения в социальных сетях // Перспективы науки и образования. 2023. № 4 (64). С. 705–723. doi: 10.32744/pse.2023.4.43. EDN YBXYXH.
  4. Шелепаева А. Х. Управление цифровой трансформацией в системе высшего образования: мировая практика // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Менеджмент. 2023. Т. 22, № 4. С. 580–604. doi: 10.21638/11701/spbu08.2023.406. EDN CGWFZM.
  5. Führ F., Bisset Alvarez E., Araújo P. C. de. Producción científica sobre Ciencias de la Información y Humanidades Digitales indexada en las bases de datos Dimensions, Scopus y Web of Science // Anales de Documentación. 2021. Vol. 24, № 2. doi: 10.6018/analesdoc.480201.
  6. Petersen D. Dimensions: A research tool for librarians // Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries. 2022. Vol. 19, № 3. P. 94–100. doi: 10.1080/15424065.2022.2113348.
  7. Herzog C., Hook D., Konkiel S. Dimensions: Bringing down barriers between scientometricians and data // Quantitative Science Studies. 2020. Vol. 1, № 1. P. 387–395. doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00020.
  8. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations / A. Martín-Martín, M. Thelwall, E. Orduna-Malea, E. Delgado López-Cózar // Scientometrics. 2021. Vol. 126, № 1. P. 871–906. doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4.
  9. Thelwall M. Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science? // Journal of Informetrics. 2018. Vol. 12, № 2. P. 430–435. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.006.
  10. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis / V. K. Singh, P. Singh, M. Karmakar [et al.] // Scientometrics. 2021. Vol. 126, № 6. P. 5113–5142. doi: 10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5.
  11. The effect of data sources on the measurement of open access: A comparison of Dimensions and the Web of Science / I. Basson, M.-A. Simard, Z. A. Ouangrе́ [et al.] // PLOS One. 2022. Vol. 17, № 3. Art. e0265545. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265545.
  12. Harzing A.-W. Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science? // Scientometrics. 2019. Vol. 120, № 1. P. 341–349. doi: 10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y.
  13. Hook D. W., Porter S. J., Herzog C. Dimensions: Building context for search and evaluation // Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. 2018. Vol. 3. Art. 23. doi: 10.3389/frma.2018.00023.
  14. Priem J., Taraborelli D., Groth P., Neylon C. Altmetrics: A manifesto // Altmetrics. 2010. October 26. URL: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ (дата обращения: 20.09.2024).
  15. Taylor M. An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences // Scientometrics. 2020. Vol. 125, № 3. P. 2523–2543. doi: 10.1007/S11192-020-03735-8.

Arquivos suplementares

Arquivos suplementares
Ação
1. JATS XML
Baixar


Creative Commons License
Este artigo é disponível sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).