Create accountLogin

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
techhub.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A hub primarily for passionate technologists, but everyone is welcome

Administered by:

Server stats:

5.4K
active users

techhub.social: AboutStatusProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.7

#wos

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Public *
François Renaville 🇺🇦🇪🇺

📢 #Scientometric indicators in #research evaluation and research #misconduct: analysis of the Russian #university excellence initiative

👉 "The results showed that #RUEI #universities had a significantly higher number of retracted #publications in #WoS - and #Scopus -indexed #journals, suggesting that pressure to meet quantitative scientometric #indicators may have encouraged unethical research practices and #researchmisconduct."

link.springer.com/article/10.1

SpringerLinkScientometric indicators in research evaluation and research misconduct: analysis of the Russian university excellence initiative - ScientometricsThis study aimed to examine the impact of the Russian University Excellence Initiative (RUEI), also known as Project 5–100, on research misconduct in Russian higher education. Launched in 2013, the RUEI incentivized universities to increase the number of publications in internationally indexed journals. The analysis compares the prevalence of retracted publications—as a proxy for research misconduct—between universities that participated in the RUEI and a control group of universities that did not. A total of 2621 retracted papers affiliated with at least one Russian institution were identified. Of which 203 papers were indexed in Web of Science (WoS) and/or Scopus databases. The results showed that RUEI universities had a significantly higher number of retracted publications in WoS- and Scopus-indexed journals, suggesting that pressure to meet quantitative scientometric indicators may have encouraged unethical research practices and research misconduct. In addition, different reasons for retraction were found between publications indexed and not indexed in WoS and/or Scopus databases. These findings suggest that the direct and irresponsible use of scientometric indicators as performance measures may have unintended negative consequences that may undermine research integrity.
#retractions#researchintegrity#Russia
Continued thread
Public
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 logo
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 its 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
Public
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 logo
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.
Public
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
Public *
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.
Public
Willy Wenig

@emmecola
The area of commercial publishers and rannkings is making itself redundant. I had a look at the #ranking of Journals in my area in #WoS (Web of Science, formerly #ISI) since this subject came up in a meeting. Turns out that the journal our community considers of the least quality (among them where we do publish) has risen to the top position, and one of the two top journals appears in Q2, second quartile. A couple of years ago, this was different. Quantity rules. #elsevier

Continued thread
Public
Netzwerk Tolerantes Sachsen

Laut Auskunft des Sozialministeriums in der LVZ konnten von 43 Neuanträgen im #WOS für 2024 aufgrund begrenzter Haushaltsmittel nur 16 zur Förderung ausgewählt werden. Der Antrag der #RosaLinde für die "Schule der Vielfalt" habe "im Antragsbewilligungsverfahren der Bewilligungsstelle keine ausreichende Platzierung" erreicht. Der Verein könne nun einen neuen Antrag für 2025 einreichen.

lvz.de/lokales/leipzig/foerder

Leipziger VolkszeitungFörderung abgelehnt: RosaLinde Leipzig muss Bildungsprojekte einstellenWeil Fördermittel vom Land nicht bewilligt wurden, muss der Leipziger Verein RosaLinde seine queeren Bildungsprojekte einstellen. Laut Sozialministerium habe das Programm bei einem nötig gewordenen Ranking keinen vorderen Platz erreicht. Die Entscheidung wird heftig kritisiert.
Continued thread
Public
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.

ExploreLive feeds
About