Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/132118
COMPARTIR / EXPORTAR:
logo share SHARE logo core CORE BASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE

Invitar a revisión por pares abierta
Campo DC Valor Lengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorValderrama-Zurián, Juan Carlos-
dc.contributor.authorAguilar-Moya, Remedios-
dc.contributor.authorMelero-Fuentes, David-
dc.contributor.authorAleixandre-Benavent, Rafael-
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-13T10:55:33Z-
dc.date.available2016-05-13T10:55:33Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifierdoi: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.05.002-
dc.identifierissn: 1751-1577-
dc.identifiere-issn: 1875-5879-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Informetrics 9(3): 570-576 (2015)-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/132118-
dc.description.abstractIn recent years, the Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus databases have become primary sources for conducting studies that evaluate scientific investigations. Such studies require that duplicate records be excluded to avoid errors of overrepresentation. In this line, we identify duplicate records in Scopus and examine their origins. Identifying journals with duplicate records in Scopus, selecting and downloading bibliographic journal records, and identifying and analyzing the duplicate records is the methodology adopted. Duplicate records are found when articles published in a journal are incorrectly mapped by Scopus to this journal and to a different journal from the same publisher and when there are journal title changes, orthographic differences in the presentation of a journal name, and journal name variants. In these last three cases, one bibliographic record of each duplicate is mapped to Medline coverage of Scopus. Consequently, the identified duplicates and the significant differences in the number of citations received in duplicate articles may influence bibliometric studies. Thus, there is a need for rigorous quality control guidelines to govern database managers and editors to prevent the creation of duplicates.-
dc.publisherElsevier-
dc.rightsclosedAccess-
dc.subjectScopus database-
dc.subjectIndexing errors-
dc.subjectDuplicate records-
dc.subjectBibliometric indicators overdimensionalized-
dc.subjectBibliographic control guidelines-
dc.titleA systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus-
dc.typeartículo-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.joi.2015.05.002-
dc.date.updated2016-05-13T10:55:33Z-
dc.description.versionPeer Reviewed-
dc.language.rfc3066eng-
dc.relation.csic-
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501es_ES
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypeartículo-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
Aparece en las colecciones: (INGENIO) Artículos
Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato
accesoRestringido.pdf15,38 kBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir
Show simple item record

CORE Recommender

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

83
checked on 30-abr-2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

83
checked on 27-feb-2024

Page view(s)

294
checked on 30-abr-2024

Download(s)

276
checked on 30-abr-2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.