- The paper evaluates Dimensions as an alternative to established databases by comparing citation coverage and correlation using Food Science research and a 10,000 article sample.
- The study finds Dimensions captures 97% of Scopus articles with a high citation correlation of 0.96, demonstrating robust comparability for citation analysis.
- The paper highlights that Dimensions’ focus on peer-reviewed content and selective indexing helps mitigate issues like preprint spamming, supporting its use in formal research evaluations.
An Assessment of Dimensions as a Scholarly Database Alternative
The article "Dimensions: A Competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?" by Mike Thelwall critically examines the scholarly database Dimensions, introduced by Digital Science in January 2018. From an impact assessment perspective, the research seeks to evaluate the database as a potential alternative to established resources like Scopus and the Web of Science. This evaluation is conducted through a specific focus on Food Science research from 2008 to 2018 and a random sample of 10,000 Scopus articles from 2012.
Major Findings
Several key findings emerge from this paper:
- Coverage and Citation Correlation: Dimensions demonstrates substantial coverage, capturing 97% of Scopus articles with DOIs in 2012. This suggests that the database is highly comprehensive, at least for the fields examined. The citation counts from Scopus and Dimensions exhibited a high correlation, reaching 0.96 by narrow field in 2012. This level of correspondence highlights the plausibility of using Dimensions for citation analysis and research evaluation tasks.
- Comparability of Citation Counts: The average (geometric mean) citation counts in Dimensions are comparable to those found in Scopus. This comparability further accentuates the potential interchangeability of the two databases for citation tracking and evaluation purposes.
- Dimensional Characteristics: Unlike some of its competitors, Dimensions predominantly indexes peer-reviewed articles, although it also includes preprint archives like bioRxiv. This selective indexing may contribute to its stable citation metrics and reduced vulnerability to spam through fake papers and self-citations, as articulated in the paper.
Practical and Theoretical Implications
The research presents several implications:
- Interchangeability of Citation Indexes: The demonstrated interchangeability suggests that Dimensions could viably support scholarly research evaluations as Scopus does, expanding the tools available for conducting impact assessments. This could democratize access to citation data for institutions or researchers, especially in scenarios constrained by budget limitations.
- Potential for Formal Evaluations: The focus on peer-reviewed content implies that Dimensions could be used for formal research assessments, placing appropriate boundaries on its data sources to ensure academic rigor and integrity.
- Existing Limitations: Despite robust coverage and correlation in citation counts, Dimensions is observed to have limitations in certain niche topics due to differing journal coverage when compared with Scopus. Such divergences can affect the citation counts of specific articles, implying that users must exercise caution and may need to cross-reference multiple databases for comprehensive insight.
Future Directions in Research Tools
As Dimensions continues to evolve, several potential developments could further enhance its utility:
- Enhanced Database Features: Incorporating additional features, such as further integration with other scholarly repositories and enhanced capabilities to separate refereed and unrefereed content, could expand its application scope in scholarly evaluation.
- Addressing Spammability: With the increasing challenges posed by preprint spamming, future adaptations focusing on mitigating these risks could bolster the reliability of the database for formal evaluation purposes.
- Broader Coverage Assessment: Future research should also investigate Dimensions' coverage beyond the few explored fields, particularly in fields with different citation cultures or lesser coverage, to fully establish its robustness across academic disciplines.
In summary, this paper highlights Dimensions as a viable alternative to traditional scholarly databases like Scopus, with significant implications for the field of research metrics and evaluations. However, as with any emerging tool, careful consideration of its limitations and ongoing developments is crucial for effective application in academic contexts.