Field classification of publications in Dimensions: a first case study testing its reliability and validity
Dimensions is a research data infrastructure and tool, including grants, publications, citations, clinical trials, and patents in one place. An interesting feature of Dimensions is its field classification scheme, which is not based on journal classification systems, as in the Web of Science or Scopus, but on machine learning. Each publication is assigned to at least one field. Using the set of my own publications, I investigated whether they were reliably and validly assigned to fields. The results put in question the reliability and validity of the scheme. Large scale studies seem necessary to investigate the scheme in more detail.
KeywordsBibliometrics Dimensions Lutz Bornmann
The bibliometric data used in this paper is from Dimensions. The author thanks Digital Science for data access.
- Bode, C., Herzog, C., Hook, D., & McGrath, R. (2018). A guide to the dimensions data approach. A collaborative approach to creating a modern infrastructure for data describing research: where we are and where we want to take it. London: Digital Science.Google Scholar
- Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Use of citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado Lopez-Cozar, E. (2018). Dimensions: Re-discovering the ecosystem of scientific information. Retrieved May 5, 2018, from https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.05365.