Advertisement

Missing documents in Scopus: the case of the journal Enfermeria Nefrologica

  • Erwin KrauskopfEmail author
Article

Abstract

In a recent paper, a group of researchers estimated various bibliometric indicators for the Spanish journal Enfermeria Nefrologica using the software “Publish or Perish”, retrieving data exclusively from Google Scholar. Since their study revealed an unusual high number of citations for the documents published by the journal, we became interested in repeating the bibliometric analysis using data from Scopus. Surprisingly, our analysis revealed a high variability in the number of documents published each year. Therefore, the journal’s website was accessed to confirm whether this irregularity was due to the journal’s publication frequency. According to the data collected, only 50.2% of the documents published by the journal between 2006 and 2017 were registered by Scopus. Such omission-induced errors raise concerns about the validity of various indicators. This study shows that while Scopus needs to improve its quality control systems, editorial management teams need to routinely check the information being indexed by the databases.

Keywords

Scopus Missing issues Missing documents Indexing Journal 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Grant Proyecto de Financiamiento Basal AFB170004.

References

  1. Bohannon, J. (2014). Google Scholar wins raves-but can it be trusted. Science, 343, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cobo Sanchez, J. L., Ochando Garcia, A., Blanco Mavillard, I., Cirera Segura, F., Crespo Monteo, R., & Casas Cuesta, R. (2018). Análisis del impacto del a producción científica de la revista Enfermería Nefrológica entre 1998–2017. Enfermeria Nefrologica, 21(4), 349–358.Google Scholar
  3. Kellner, A. W. A., & Azevedo, R. A. (2013). A closer look at the impact factor (JCR 2012): problems, concerns and actions needed. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, 85(3), 859–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Krauskopf, E. (2017). Call for caution in the use of bibliometric data. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(8), 2029–2032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., & Shams, I. (2009). Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA, 302(10), 1092–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Liu, W., Hu, G., & Tang, L. (2018). Missing author address information in Web of Science—An explorative study. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 985–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lopez-Cozar, E.D., Robinson-Garcia, N., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2012) Manipulating Google Scholar citations and Google Scholar metrics: Simple, easy and tempting. ArXiv Preprint. 2012. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/labs/1212.0638. Accessed January 27, 2019.
  8. Martell, C. (2009). A citation analysis of college & research libraries comparing Yahoo, Google, Google Scholar, and ISI web of knowledge with implications for promotion and tenure. College & Research Libraries, 70(5), 460–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 24, 348–349.Google Scholar
  10. Valderrama-Zurian, J. C., Aguilar-Moya, R., Melero-Fuentes, D., & Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2015). A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 570–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Accuracy of citation data in Web of Science and Scopus. In ISSI 201716th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics, conference proceedings (pp. 1087–1092).Google Scholar
  12. Zhu, J., Hu, G., & Liu, W. (2018). DOI errors and possible solutions for Web of Science. Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2980-7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Ciencias de la VidaUniversidad Andres BelloSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Fundacion Ciencia y VidaSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations