petersuber<p>New study: "Non-selective databases (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Dimensions" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Dimensions</span></a>, <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAlex" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OpenAlex</span></a>, <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Scilit" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Scilit</span></a>, and <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/TheLens" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>TheLens</span></a>) index a greater amount of retracted literature than do databases that rely their indexation on venue selection (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PubMed" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PubMed</span></a>, <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Scopus" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Scopus</span></a>, and <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/WoS" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>WoS</span></a>)…The high coverage of OpenAlex and Scilit could be explained by the inaccurate labeling of retracted documents in <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Scopus" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Scopus</span></a>, Dimensions, and The Lens."<br><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-05034-y" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">link.springer.com/article/10.1</span><span class="invisible">007/s11192-024-05034-y</span></a> </p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Retractions" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Retractions</span></a></p>