🏆 Finalist — NIH Data Sharing Index (“S-Index”) Challenge
Demo corpus. Scores are computed on a select set of biomedical paper/datasets and may be inaccurate for papers outside this corpus — DataRank relies on network effects that improve with scale. We aim to expand this into a fully open resource pending additional funding.

The effect of data sources on the measurement of open access: A comparison of Dimensions and the Web of Science

PLOS ONE(2022)10.1371/journal.pone.0265545Source: DataRank Database

The effect of data sources on the measurement of open access: A comparison of Dimensions and the Web of Science is a research paper published in PLOS ONE (2022). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.584. It has been cited 48 times.

N/A
0.584DataRank · unranked
0.584
Open Access48 citations · base score 3.9
Cite:
datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6· scope data_onlyMethodology

Abstract

With the growing number of open access (OA) mandates, the accurate measurement of OA publishing is an important policy issue. Existing studies have provided estimates of the prevalence of OA publications ranging from 27.9% to 53.7%, depending on the data source and period of investigation. This paper aims at providing a comparison of the proportion of OA publishing as represented in two major bibliometric databases, Web of Science (WoS) and Dimensions, and assesses how the choice of database affects the measurement of OA across different countries. Results show that a higher proportion of publications indexed in Dimensions are OA than those indexed by WoS, and that this is particularly true for publications originating from outside North America and Europe. The paper concludes with a discussion of the cause and consequences of these differences, motivating the use of more inclusive databases when examining OA, especially for publications originating beyond North America and Europe.

Data sources & pipeline
Pipeline:MetadataData-paper checkEnrichmentCitation networkScoring
Enrichment:Pending

FAIR Checklist

Context only (not used in score)
Findable (1/2)
  • Has DOI
Accessible (1/2)
  • Open Access
Interoperable (0/2)
    Reusable (0/3)

      FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.

      DataRank Breakdown

      Base Score 100%Citation Network 0%

      Base Score Contribution

      0.584

      From this paper's citation signal

      Citation Network Contribution

      0

      Citation network not refreshed for this result

      This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.

      Learn more about DataRank methodology →
      Why this DataRank?

      DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.

      Base score B(p)
      log1p(citation_count) — grows sub-linearly, so a paper with 1,000 citations is not 10× a paper with 100.
      Network N(p)
      Σ over citers of log1p(Cq) ÷ max(outdegreeq, 1). Being cited by a highly-cited paper with few references counts most.
      Damping factor d = 0.85
      DataRank = (1−d)·B(p) + d·N(p) — the two cards above are each already multiplied by their share.
      Self-citations excluded
      Citers sharing any OpenAlex author ID with this paper are filtered out before the network sum.

      Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.

      Read the full methodology →

      Related Papers (10)

      PLOS ONE(2015)
      co-citedsame journal
      10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
      Evaluating big deal journal bundles
      N/A
      0.675DataRank · unranked
      Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(2014)
      co-cited
      10.1073/pnas.1403006111
      Nature(2013)
      co-cited
      10.1038/495426a