Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Open access Jurnal SINTA 1

Comparative analysis of Dimensions and Scopus bibliographic data sources: an approach to university research productivity

International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE) · Vol. 12 No. 1 (2022)

DOI
10.11591/ijece.v12i1.pp706-720
ISSN
2722-2578, 2088-8708
Published
2022-02-01
Publisher
Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science
License
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0

Abstract

This paper shows a significant comparison of two primary bibliographic data sources at the document level of Scopus and Dimensions. The emphasis is on the differences in their document coverage by institution level of aggregation. The main objective is to assess whether Dimensions offers at the institutional level good new possibilities for bibliometric analysis as at the global level. The results of a comparative study of the citation count profiles of articles published by faculty members of Prince of Songkla University (PSU) in Dimensions and Scopus from the year the databases first included PSU-authored papers (1970 and 1978, respectively) through the end of June 2020. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of 19,846 articles indexed in Dimensions and 13,577 indexed in Scopus. The main finding was that the number of citations received by Dimensions was highly correlated with citation counts in Scopus. Spearman’s correlation between citation counts in Dimensions and Scopus was a high and mighty relationship. The findings mainly affect Dimensions’ possibilities as instruments for carrying out bibliometric analysis of university members’ research productivity. University researchers can use Dimensions to retrieve information, and the design policies can be used to evaluate research using scientific databases.

Collaboration network of the authors

2 authors · 1 co-authorship link

Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.

  • Prince of Songkla University
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles

Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.

This record comes from Crossref (what the publisher deposited), because the journal's own OAI-PMH endpoint could not be harvested.

Metadata source: Crossref API (cadangan, berdasarkan ISSN) https://api.crossref.org/journals/2088-8708/works, first harvested 27 Okt 2026, last seen 27 Okt 2026.
Metadata as oai_dc, converted from Crossref
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/"><dc:title>Comparative analysis of Dimensions and Scopus bibliographic data sources: an approach to university research productivity</dc:title><dc:creator>Kulkanjanapiban, Pachisa</dc:creator><dc:creator>Silwattananusarn, Tipawan</dc:creator><dc:description>&lt;jats:p&gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;This paper shows a significant comparison of two primary bibliographic data sources at the document level of Scopus and Dimensions. The emphasis is on the differences in their document coverage by institution level of aggregation. The main objective is to assess whether Dimensions offers at the institutional level good new possibilities for bibliometric analysis as at the global level. The results of a comparative study of the citation count profiles of articles published by faculty members of Prince of Songkla University (PSU) in Dimensions and Scopus from the year the databases first included PSU-authored papers (1970 and 1978, respectively) through the end of June 2020. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of 19,846 articles indexed in Dimensions and 13,577 indexed in Scopus. The main finding was that the number of citations received by Dimensions was highly correlated with citation counts in Scopus. Spearman’s correlation between citation counts in Dimensions and Scopus was a high and mighty relationship. The findings mainly affect Dimensions’ possibilities as instruments for carrying out bibliometric analysis of university members’ research productivity. University researchers can use Dimensions to retrieve information, and the design policies can be used to evaluate research using &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;scientific databases.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;/jats:p&gt;</dc:description><dc:publisher>Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science</dc:publisher><dc:date>2022-02-01</dc:date><dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type><dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format><dc:identifier>https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v12i1.pp706-720</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>10.11591/ijece.v12i1.pp706-720</dc:identifier><dc:source>International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE); Vol 12 No 1 (2022); 706</dc:source><dc:source>2722-2578</dc:source><dc:source>2088-8708</dc:source><dc:relation>http://ijece.iaescore.com/index.php/IJECE/article/viewFile/25691/15377</dc:relation><dc:rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0</dc:rights></oai_dc:dc>