Any thought about why?
-
-
-
Different inclusion criteria, bias towards English language, bias against journals from Global South.
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
We also looked at this in our
#Plan_S gap analysis for a (small) sample of 'other' full OA journals (not all academy owned/led) - not only looking at coverage in WoS, but also in DOAJ, Crossref and ISSN-registry. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3543000 … (Appendix A5) cc@jeroenbosmanpic.twitter.com/aYIurHBiMN
-
A more comprehensive database would indeed be a great good - the challenge is as much in coverage as it is in metadata.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Another approach says that Scopus & WoS are not part of an open infrastructure. Question then is: what is the coverage of academia-owned journals in open databases like
@doaj,@Redalyc and@TheLensOrg or an@opencitations based search engine? And: could they replace Scopus/WoS? -
Will you do that work?
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Anyone know of the percentage for
#GoogleScholar in terms of coverage of academy owned publications?Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
If one looks at articles (not their containers), the data will probably paint a very different picture. DOAJ has 4.45M articles; Scopus 11.5M; WOS 90M. Does anyone have overlap data at article level?
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.