Duplication issues with the new interface of Scopus
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3145/infonomy.24.015Keywords:
Scopus, Bibliometrics, Bibliographic records, Duplication, Journalology, File import, File export, Downloading filesAbstract
This short communication discusses the duplication issue in Scopus's new interface. After searching for bibliographic records, the author noticed many duplicates in the downloadable file. This issue lasted a month, with 67% of records duplicated. After alerting Scopus, the new version was confirmed to have a duplication issue, prompting a recommendation to revert back to the old version. The study advises caution when utilizing Scopus data, particularly when exporting large files. Additionally, it highlights the novel attributes of the Scopus interface, including the ability to download 20,000 records at a time, a notable increase from the previous limit of 2,000.
References
Baas, J.; Schotten, M.; Plume, A.; Côté, G.; Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative science studies, 1(1), 377-386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019
Burnham, J. F. (2006). Scopus database: a review. Biomedical digital libraries, 3(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-1
Ceasar, S. A.; Ignacimuthu, S. (2023). CRISPR/Cas genome editing in plants: Dawn of Agrobacterium transformation for recalcitrant and transgene-free plants for future crop breeding. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 196, 724-730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2023.02.030
Elango, B.; Kozak, M.; Rajendran, P. (2019). Analysis of retractions in Indian science. Scientometrics, 119(2), 1081-1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03079-y
Elango, B.; Matilda, S.; Martina Jose Mary, M.; Arul Pugazhendhi, M. (2023). Mapping the cybersecurity research: A scientometric analysis of Indian publications. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 63(2), 293-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2022.2058644
Krauskopf, E. (2018). An analysis of discontinued journals by Scopus. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1805-1815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5
Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
Pranckutė, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications, 9(1), 12.
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012
Singh, V. K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126, 5113-5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5
Tennant, J. P. (2020). Web of Science and Scopus are not global databases of knowledge. European Science Editing, 46, e51987. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51987
Thelwall, M. (2018). Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?. Journal of informetrics, 12(2), 430-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.006
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P. (2022). Scopus 1900–2020: Growth in articles, abstracts, countries, fields, and journals. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(1), 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00177
Vera-Baceta, M. A.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K. (2019). Web of Science and Scopus language coverage. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1803-1813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03264-z
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Downloads
Dimensions
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Bakthavachalam Elango
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
