Web of Science owner buys up booming peer-review platform

Nature ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Van Noorden
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Web Of Science

scholarly journals The prevalence and impact of university affiliation discrepancies between four bibliographic databases – Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, and Microsoft Academic

2022 ◽  
pp. 1-47
Author(s):  
Philip J. Purnell
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
The Other ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Bibliometric Data ◽  
Digital Object ◽  
Manual Examination ◽  
Microsoft Academic ◽  
University Affiliation

Abstract Research managers benchmarking universities against international peers face the problem of affiliation disambiguation. Different databases have taken separate approaches to this problem and discrepancies exist between them. Bibliometric data sources typically conduct a disambiguation process that unifies variant institutional names and those of its sub-units so that researchers can then search all records from that institution using a single unified name. This study examined affiliation discrepancies between Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, and Microsoft Academic for 18 Arab universities over a five-year period. We confirmed that digital object identifiers (DOIs) are suitable for extracting comparable scholarly material across databases and quantified the affiliation discrepancies between them. A substantial share of records assigned to the selected universities in any one database were not assigned to the same university in another. The share of discrepancy was higher in the larger databases, Dimensions and Microsoft Academic. The smaller, more selective databases, Scopus and especially Web of Science tended to agree to a greater degree with affiliations in the other databases. Manual examination of affiliation discrepancies showed they were caused by a mixture of missing affiliations, unification differences, and assignation of records to the wrong institution. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00175

Análisis de contenido y nivel de evidencia de los artículos sobre Covid-19 más citados en la Web of Science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
José-Antonio Salvador-Oliván ◽  
Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca ◽  
Rosario Arquero-Avilés
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Expert Opinions ◽  
Bibliographic Data

The scientific literature on Covid-10 has seen unprecedented growth, becoming published so rapidly that it has caused a loss of quality and the peer review process to be questioned. This research analyzes the characteristics of the publications with a wider impact on Covid-19, mainly those related to the content, the quality and level of evidence of the studies. Web of Science Core Collection was searched for articles containing the terms Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-19 and the 100 most cited articles published in 2020 were selected. The data extracted included bibliographic data, dates of submission, acceptance and publication in the journals, main topics covered, type of study and level of evidence according to the SIGN scale, and the presence of corrections. Half of the articles were published in 3 journals, most of them in the first months of 2020. The most frequent types of studies corresponded to case series, narrative reviews and expert opinions, with only 1 randomized controlled clinical trial. The articles focused mainly on the clinical characteristics and complications of the patients, diagnostic and treatment methods, as well as the epidemiology and characteristics of the virus. The design of these studies reflects a low level of evidence, and data and scientific quality may be affected by how quickly they are published, and the peer review process is performed. Resumen El crecimiento sin precedentes de la bibliografía científica sobre Covid-19 y la rapidez en su publicación ha llevado a cuestionar la calidad y el proceso de revisión por pares. Este estudio tiene como objetivo analizar las características de las publicaciones con mayor impacto sobre Covid-19, principalmente las relacionadas con el contenido, la calidad y nivel de evidencia de los estudios. Para ello, se buscó en la colección principal de Web of Science los artículos que contenían los términos Covid-19 y SARS-CoV-19 en el campo del título y se seleccionaron los 100 artículos más citados publicados en el año 2020. Además de los datos bibliográficos, se recogieron datos de las fechas de envío, aceptación y publicación en las revistas, principales temas tratados, tipo de estudio y nivel de evidencia según la escala SIGN, así como de la presencia de correcciones. Más de la mitad de los artículos están publicados en 3 revistas, y la mayoría de ellos en los primeros meses de 2020. Los tipos de estudios más frecuentes son series de casos, revisiones narrativas y opiniones de expertos, con solo 1 ensayo clínico controlado aleatorizado. El contenido de los artículos trata principalmente de las características clínicas y complicaciones de los enfermos, métodos diagnósticos y de tratamiento, así como de la epidemiología y características del virus. Los artículos presentan un nivel de evidencia bajo, a pesar de estar publicados en revistas de medicina con muy alto factor de impacto. El tiempo transcurrido entre la fecha de envío y de publicación es muy corto y cuestiona la realización y/o rigor del proceso de revisión por pares.

scholarly journals USE OF SCIENTIFIC PROFILES TO PRESENT THE RESULTS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH OF UNIVERSITIES

2020 ◽  
pp. 89-94
Author(s):  
Iryna Mihus ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
General Information ◽  
The Internet ◽  
University Staff ◽  
H Index ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
Scientific Achievements

The article substantiates that the main problem of modern universities is the search for effective methods and tools to present the results of their activities in the Internet space in order to attract more applicants and, in turn, increase the position in the rankings. The study found that an equally important component of the vast majority of rankings are research results, which are calculated as the number of scientific articles published in journals indexed in Scopus / Web of Science, as well as the h-index. A study of the positions of Ukrainian universities in international rankings showed that, despite significant advances in science, they can not get into such rankings. The study found that one of the reasons for this situation is the low level of transparency of both the research conducted at universities and the results of such research. To solve this problem, it is proposed to use scientific profiles of university staff, which contribute to the dissemination of information about scientific achievements, as they contain general information about authors that can be used for grants, participation in conferences, peer review, international rankings and others. The aim of the article is to manage the information reflected in the scientific profiles of researchers to increase the position of universities in international rankings using the results of its comparison with the information used to compile these rankings. The research methodology includes: methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, method of comparing results. It is established that the main scientific profiles that universities can use to publish research results are: Author ID in Scopus, ResearcherID, ORCID, Google Scholar. Thus, the study found that the international rankings of universities, in addition to the information posted on their websites, also use the information contained in the scientific profiles of employees of these institutions. The lack of completed profiles of scientists leads to a decrease in the position of universities in international and domestic rankings.

scholarly journals Errata and retractions associated with research papers published by authors with Hungarian affiliations

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaime Teixeira da Silva ◽  
Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Research Institutes ◽  
The University

Background: To examine the errata and retractions in total published output of Hungarian research and academia relative to that in 34 other European countries. Objective: To analyse the number of errata and retractions related to papers published by authors with Hungarian affiliations compared to those by authors with affiliations in the 34 other countries. Methods: Errata and retractions retrieved from three databases, namely Retraction Watch, Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus, were counted and sorted by country. Results: Scopus featured 7 retractions linked to Hungarian affiliations and WoS featured 10. Retraction Watch featured 26 such retractions, placing Hungary in 23rd position among the 35 countries arranged in descending order of the number of retractions. Of the 26 retractions from Hungary, 5 were in Elsevier journals and another 5 in Springer Nature; also, 8 of the 26 were associated with the University of Debrecen. When ranked for the number of errata notices for every 1000 published papers, Hungary was ranked 29th in WoS (2.54 notices per 1000 papers) and 26th in Scopus (2.3 notices per 1000 papers). Conclusions: The low numbers of Hungarian affiliations suggest that either research ethics are more stringently observed in Hungary or that publications from Hungarian research institutes, including papers in Hungarian – many Hungarian journals are indexed neither in WoS nor in Scopus – have not been scrutinized adequately through post-publication peer review.

scholarly journals Percepción de las revistas científicas españolas hacia el acceso abierto, open peer review y altmetrics

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
Francisco Segado-Boj ◽  
Juan Martín-Quevedo ◽  
Juan-José Prieto
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Acceso Abierto ◽  
Medios Sociales

Se analiza la percepción que poseen los editores de revistas académica españolas acerca de los principales cambios producidos por las tecnologías digitales y los medios sociales en la comunicación científica. Concretamente se abordan las ventajas y desventajas atribuidas al acceso abierto, a la revisión abierta por pares y a las altmetrics. Para ello se ha llevado a cabo una entrevista a 15 directores de revistas indexadas en Web of Science o en Scopus, pertenecientes tanto al área de Ciencias como de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades. Los resultados obtenidos apuntan a una percepción negativa de todas estas herramientas debido al temor al posible daño de la reputación de la revista. Tan solo el acceso abierto es percibido de manera positiva.

scholarly journals All the Research That’s Fit to Print: Open Access and the News Media

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-35
Author(s):  
Teresa Schultz
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
News Media ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Scholarly Research ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
The Web

Abstract The goal of the open access (OA) movement is to help everyone access the scholarly research, not just those who can afford to. However, most studies looking at whether OA has met this goal have focused on whether other scholars are making use of OA research. Few have considered how the broader public, including the news media, uses OA research. This study sought to answer whether the news media mentions OA articles more or less than paywalled articles by looking at articles published from 2010 through 2018 in journals across all four quartiles of the Journal Impact Factor using data obtained through Altmetric.com and the Web of Science. Gold, green and hybrid OA articles all had a positive correlation with the number of news mentions received. News mentions for OA articles did see a dip in 2018, although they remained higher than those for paywalled articles. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00139

Charakteristika der meist zitierten englischsprachigen Zeitschriftenbeiträge der Publikationsjahre 1981 bis 2010 aus der Psychologie der deutschsprachigen Länder

2014 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Günter Krampen ◽  
Gabriel Schui ◽  
Dieter Ferring ◽  
Hans P. W. Bauer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Web Of Science

Präsentiert werden die Befunde einer publikationsbasierten Zitationsanalyse für 28.383 englischsprachige Zeitschriftenbeiträge, die aus der Psychologie der deutschsprachigen Länder zwischen 1981 und 2010 publiziert wurden. Verwendet wurde das Web of Science, von dem knapp 90 % dieser Publikationen abgedeckt werden. Die Häufigkeitsverteilung der Fremdzitations-Anzahl ist extrem linksschief verteilt und zeigt, dass zirka 20 % dieser Publikationen nie, 60 % zwischen 1 Mal und 22 Mal und 20 % mehr als 22 Mal von anderen Autoren zitiert werden. Das Alter der Publikation und die Zitationsanzahl sind signifikant, aber numerisch niedrig rangkorreliert. Nach dem daher vertretbaren Kriterium der Anzahl der Fremdzitationen pro Jahr seit Drucklegung des Beitrages wurden die 107 meist zitierten Beiträge (TOP-107) identifiziert, die die ersten 48 Rangplätze belegen. Deren Charakteristika werden mit Bezug auf die (Ko‐)Autorenschaften, deren Internationalität, die vertretenen psychologischen Teildisziplinen und die Studienart (z. B. empirisch versus nicht-empirisch) beschrieben. Die Beschränkungen und die Möglichkeiten von Zitationsanalysen werden diskutiert, wobei ihre rationale Integration in empirisch gestützte Peer-Review-Prozeduren favorisiert wird.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document