Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
101010.pl is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
101010.pl czyli najstarszy polski serwer Mastodon. Posiadamy wpisy do 2048 znaków.

Administered by:

Server stats:

478
active users

101010.pl: AboutStatusProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.5.0-alpha.1

#wos

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Continued thread
petersuber

Update. "#OpenAlex exhibits a far more balanced linguistic coverage than #WoS. However, language metadata is not always accurate, which leads OpenAlex to overestimate the place of English while underestimating that of other languages."
arxiv.org/abs/2409.10633

arXiv.orgEvaluating the Linguistic Coverage of OpenAlex: An Assessment of Metadata Accuracy and CompletenessClarivate's Web of Science (WoS) and Elsevier's Scopus have been for decades the main sources of bibliometric information. Although highly curated, these closed, proprietary databases are largely biased towards English-language publications, underestimating the use of other languages in research dissemination. Launched in 2022, OpenAlex promised comprehensive, inclusive, and open-source research information. While already in use by scholars and research institutions, the quality of its metadata is currently being assessed. This paper contributes to this literature by assessing the completeness and accuracy of OpenAlex's metadata related to language, through a comparison with WoS, as well as an in-depth manual validation of a sample of 6,836 articles. Results show that OpenAlex exhibits a far more balanced linguistic coverage than WoS. However, language metadata is not always accurate, which leads OpenAlex to overestimate the place of English while underestimating that of other languages. If used critically, OpenAlex can provide comprehensive and representative analyses of languages used for scholarly publishing. However, more work is needed at infrastructural level to ensure the quality of metadata on language.
#Multilingualism#MultilingualResearch
Continued thread
petersuber

Update. More on the incompleteness of #WOS and #Scopus in covering #African journals, and the comparative comprehensiveness of #OpenAlex (@OpenAlex).
arxiv.org/abs/2409.01120

arXiv.orgCoverage and metadata availability of African publications in OpenAlex: A comparative analysisUnlike traditional proprietary data sources like Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), OpenAlex emphasizes its comprehensive coverage, particularly highlighting its inclusion of the humanities, non-English languages, and research from the Global South. Strengthening diversity and inclusivity in science is crucial for ethical and practical reasons. This paper analyses OpenAlex's coverage and metadata availability of African-based publications. For this purpose, we compare OpenAlex with Scopus, WoS, and African Journals Online (AJOL). We first compare the coverage of African research publications in OpenAlex against that of WoS, Scopus, and AJOL. We then assess and compare the available metadata for OpenAlex, Scopus, and WoS publications. Our analysis shows that OpenAlex offers the most extensive publication coverage. In terms of metadata, OpenAlex offers a high coverage of publication and author information. It performs worse regarding affiliations, references, and funder information. Importantly, our results also show that metadata availability in OpenAlex is better for publications that are also indexed in Scopus or WoS.
Amigant

Pan Mario Rebel - Towarzysz #Woś dostał wezwanie z prokuratury na 3 znane adresy i wszystkie znane adresy e-mail Nie odbiera
?
Napoleon z fundacji celowej Wieprze #Orwell.a:

- Katolik katolikiem, ale sprawdźcie u kochanki lub "przyjaciela"...

petersuber

New study: "Non-selective databases (#Dimensions, #OpenAlex, #Scilit, and #TheLens) index a greater amount of retracted literature than do databases that rely their indexation on venue selection (#PubMed, #Scopus, and #WoS)…The high coverage of OpenAlex and Scilit could be explained by the inaccurate labeling of retracted documents in #Scopus, Dimensions, and The Lens."
link.springer.com/article/10.1

SpringerLinkThe indexation of retracted literature in seven principal scholarly databases: a coverage comparison of dimensions, OpenAlex, PubMed, Scilit, Scopus, The Lens and Web of Science - ScientometricsIn this study, the coverage and overlap of retracted publications, retraction notices and withdrawals are compared across seven significant scholarly databases, with the aim to check for discrepancies, pinpoint the causes of those discrepancies, and choose the best product to produce the most accurate picture of retracted literature. Seven scholarly databases were searched to obtain all the retracted publications, retraction notices and withdrawal from 2000. Only web search interfaces were used, excepting in OpenAlex and Scilit. The findings demonstrate that non-selective databases (Dimensions, OpenAlex, Scilit, and The Lens) index a greater amount of retracted literature than do databases that rely their indexation on venue selection (PubMed, Scopus, and WoS). The key factors explaining these discrepancies are the indexation of withdrawals and proceeding articles. Additionally, the high coverage of OpenAlex and Scilit could be explained by the inaccurate labeling of retracted documents in Scopus, Dimensions, and The Lens. 99% of the sample is jointly covered by OpenAlex, Scilit and WoS. The study suggests that research on retracted literature would require querying more than one source and that it should be advisable to accurately identify and label this literature in academic databases.
#Retractions
Continued thread
*
petersuber

Update. More data on the #WOS bias toward the #oligopoly of large publishers, and the absence of that bias in more inclusive indices like #OpenAlex (@OpenAlex) and #Dimensions.
arxiv.org/abs/2406.17893

arXiv.orgThe oligopoly of academic publishers persists in exclusive databaseGlobal scholarly publishing has been dominated by a small number of publishers for several decades. We aimed to revisit the debate on corporate control of scholarly publishing by analyzing the relative shares of major publishers and smaller, independent publishers. Using the Web of Science, Dimensions and OpenAlex, we managed to retrieve twice as many articles indexed in Dimensions and OpenAlex, compared to the rather selective Web of Science. As a result of excluding smaller publishers, the 'oligopoly' of scholarly publishers persists, at least in appearance, according to the Web of Science. However, both Dimensions' and OpenAlex' inclusive indexing revealed the share of smaller publishers has been growing rapidly, especially since the onset of large-scale online publishing around 2000, resulting in a current cumulative dominance of smaller publishers. While the expansion of small publishers was most pronounced in the social sciences and humanities, the natural and medical sciences showed a similar trend. A major geographical divergence is also revealed, with some countries, mostly Anglo-Saxon and/or located in northwestern Europe, relying heavily on major publishers for the dissemination of their research, while others being relatively independent of the oligopoly, such as those in Latin America, northern Africa, eastern Europe and parts of Asia. The emergence of digital publishing, the reduction of expenses for printing and distribution and open-source journal management tools may have contributed to the emergence of small publishers, while the development of inclusive bibliometric databases has allowed for the effective indexing of journals and articles. We conclude that enhanced visibility to recently created, independent journals may favour their growth and stimulate global scholarly bibliodiversity.
Continued thread
Netzwerk Tolerantes Sachsen

Auch beim Förderprogramm #IntegrativeMaßnahmen werden die Träger gerade über die Bewilligung oder Ablehnung ihrer Projekte informiert. Hier gab es zur neuen Antragsfrist im Dezember 69 Neuanträge. Beide Programme sind sehr gefragt und regelmäßig überzeichnet.

Bei der #RosaLinde kommt hinzu, dass im aktuellen Haushalt ein Teil der Mittel aus dem #WOS explizit für die queeren Bildungsprojekte der Vereine #Gerede aus Dresden, #RosaLinde aus Leipzig und #differentpeople aus Chemnitz vorgesehen ist.

Ludo Waltman

CNRS has unsubscribed from Scopus publications database cnrs.fr/en/cnrsinfo/cnrs-has-u

"Unsubscribing from #Scopus bibliographic database is first stage of process of freeing #CNRS from commercial databases and gradually switching to free bibliographic tools"

"#WOS subscription will be maintained during this transition"

"CNRS's decision is in line with international vision underpinning announcement by @cwts that it is launching transparent reproducible version of its world ranking of universities"

CNRSThe CNRS has unsubscribed from the Scopus publications databaseThe CNRS committed to open science several years ago and of course this includes publication databases for which sustainable open solutions need to be found.
Włóczykij

Wszedłem sobie dzisiaj na kanał na , żeby zerknąć sobie, co tam ciekawego jest i trafiłem na bardzo ciekawy filmik edukacyjny. Prowadzi go z jednym gościem, specjalistą od . Można poznać wiele ciekawostek i informacji o sejmie, jego pracy i ogólnie o samym budynku. Nie ma tam żadnej polityki, więc można sobie spokojnie i bez nerwów obejrzeć.

youtube.com/watch?v=X-BE-Gq-D6U

YouTubeSejm. Nowe otwarcie z marszałkiem Szymonem HołowniąBy Sejm RP
#Edukacja#WOS#WiedzaOSpołeczeństwie
Continued thread
*
petersuber

Update. A new study of the #CulturalHeritage research indexed in #WOS finds it skewed toward English-language publications and the global #north. The authors conclude that this is partly due to biases in the research itself and partly due to biases in what #WOS chooses to index.
nature.com/articles/s41599-023

"WOS itself can be seen as a Western platform continuing the Eurocentric history of science."

NatureA bibliometric analysis of cultural heritage research in the humanities: The Web of Science as a tool of knowledge management - Humanities and Social Sciences CommunicationsSubstantial research on the topic of cultural heritage has been conducted over the past two decades. At the same time, the overall output volume of journals and citation metrics have become important parameters in assessing and ranking researchers’ performance. Even though the scholarly interest in cultural heritage has recently increased world-wide, a comprehensive analysis of the publication output volume and its correlation to the shift in the cultural heritage regime starting in 2003 is still lacking. The article aims to understand the role of Web of Science (WOS) as a tool of knowledge management in academia by drawing on the scholarly output volume, the patterns displayed by this volume, and the intellectual structure of cultural heritage research based on WOS-indexed journal articles. The data include 1843 journal articles published between 2003 and 2022 and indexed in the WOS Core Collection. The article draws on a bibliometric analysis by using WOS tools and employing VOSviewer software to map and visualize hidden patterns of research collaboration and avenues of knowledge progress. The cultural heritage research indexed in WOS was found to be Eurocentric, corresponding to the increasing funding provided by European national and supranational agencies for research funding. Although the indexed research has grown significantly, the bulk of studies on cultural heritage in WOS is concentrated in a reduced number of European institutions and countries, written by a small number of prolific authors, with relatively poor collaborative ties emerging across time between authors, institutions, and countries. The central themes reflect the development of digital technologies and increased participatory emphasis in cultural heritage care. This article brings new insights into the analysis of the cultural heritage research in correlation with the emergence of international heritage governance with new institutional actors, professional networks, and international agreements, which are all constitutive elements of scientific production. The article seeks to critically assess and discuss the results and the role of WOS as a tool of knowledge management in academia.
#multilingualism#south
Replied in thread
petersuber

@csmarcum
I don't know how well #Dimensions covers African journals specifically. But it's much more comprehensive overall than #Scopus or #WOS.
fediscience.org/@petersuber/10

FediScience.orgpetersuber (@petersuber@fediscience.org)How many academic journals are there? Don't look for the answer in Web of Science or Scopus. For a better start see this new study. https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/doi/10.1162/qss_a_00228/114119/Recalibrating-the-Scope-of-Scholarly-Publishing-A From Table 3. Journals listed by different sources: EBSCOHost = 17,874 WoS = 24,510 Scopus = 41,957 Dimensions = 72,990 OpenAlex = 124,073 But all of these are incomplete. The authors use Open Journal Systems data to show that OJS journals are omitted from each source. #journals #wos #scopus #ebscohost #dimensions #openalex #ojs #south 🧵
Continued thread
petersuber

Update. #SCOPUS and #WOS are very incomplete at indexing #African journals.
universityworldnews.com/post.p

"Only 4% of Nigeria’s 294 biomedical journals are indexed in the major indexes, according to the book. 'There is also little overlap between the African journals hosted on #AJOL (African Journals Online) and those indexed in Scopus,' the authors add."

University World NewsEscaping ‘bibliometric coloniality’, ‘epistemic inequality’Africa’s scholarly journals compete on an unequal playing field because of a lack of funding and the struggle to sustain academic credibility. These...
Continued thread
*
petersuber

Update. More on the serious incompleteness of #SCOPUS and Web of Science (#WOS):

"Comparing #DOAJ-registered #Asian [#OpenAccess] journals with international citation database listed journals, [we found that] 11% of journals were listed on Scopus and only 2.6% and 0.1% were listed on #SCIE and #SSCI [Science Citation Index Expanded and Science Citation Index, both part of WOS]."
ijkcdt.net/_common/do.php?a=ah

ijkcdt.netInternational Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology
*
petersuber

How many academic journals are there? Don't look for the answer in Web of Science or Scopus. For a better start see this new study.
direct.mit.edu/qss/article/doi

From Table 3. Journals listed by different sources:

EBSCOHost = 17,874
WoS = 24,510
Scopus = 41,957
Dimensions = 72,990
OpenAlex = 124,073

But all of these are incomplete. The authors use Open Journal Systems data to show that OJS journals are omitted from each source.

#journals #wos #scopus #ebscohost #dimensions #openalex #ojs #south

🧵

MIT PressRecalibrating the Scope of Scholarly Publishing: A Modest Step in a Vast Decolonization ProcessAbstract. By analyzing 25,671 journals largely absent from common journal counts, as well as Web of Science and Scopus, this study demonstrates that scholarly communication is more of a global endeavor than is commonly credited. These journals, employing the open source publishing platform Open Journal Systems (OJS), have published 5.8 million items; they are in 136 countries, with 79.9% in the Global South and 84.2% following the OA diamond model (charging neither reader nor author). A substantial proportion of journals operate in more than one language (48.3%), with research published in a total of 60 languages (led by English, Indonesian, Spanish, and Portuguese). The journals are distributed across the social sciences (45.9%), STEM (40.3%), and the humanities (13.8%). For all their geographic, linguistic, and disciplinary diversity, 1.2% are indexed in the Web of Science and 5.7% in Scopus. On the other hand, 1.0% are found in Cabells Predatory Reports, while 1.4% show up in Beall’s questionable list. This paper seeks to both contribute and historically situate expanded scale and diversity of scholarly publishing in the hope that this recognition may assist humankind in taking full advantage of what is increasingly a global research enterprise.Peer Review. https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00228
TrendingLive feeds
About