The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?
Open accessOverview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Citations extracted from Altmetric explorer are counted using Dimensions software, which has been shown to have comparable capture to Web of Science and Scopus (Harzing, 2019; Thelwall, 2018).”
From Graphical abstracts are associated with greater Altmetric attention scores, but not citations, in sport science (2023) · cites this paper as Thelwall, 2018
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“However, due to its recent introduction, relatively little is known regarding its comprehensiveness and validity as a reliable bibliographic data source, as the exploring of these features has only just began in the scientometric community [32,37-40].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [37]
In the citing paper
“For this research, Scopus is utilized.”
From Digitisation and the Circular Economy: A Review of Current Research and Future Trends (2018) · cites this paper as [69]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 · Cited by 5,274
Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf · Cited by 5,039
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007 · Cited by 1,356
Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web
Aldo Gangemi, A., Leonardi, S., & Panconesi, A. (2015) · doi:10.1145/2740908 · Cited by 1,080
Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services
Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064841 · Cited by 907
Self-citationComparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus
Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21062 · Cited by 833
Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23309 · Cited by 711
An Overview of Microsoft Academic Service (MAS) and Applications
Sinha, A., Shen, Z., Song, Y., Ma, H., Eide, D., Hsu, B.-J. (., & Wang, K. (2015) · Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/2740908.2742839 · Cited by 658
The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management
Wilsdon, J. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781473978782 · Cited by 610
Hutchins, B. I., Yuan, X., Anderson, J. M., & Santangelo, G. M. (2016) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541 · Cited by 500
Halevi, G., Moed, H., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.005 · Cited by 488
Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations
Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2010) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.08.001 · Cited by 438
"Science Citation Index"—A New Dimension in Indexing
Garfield, E. (1964) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.144.3619.649 · Cited by 427
The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators
Delgado López‐Cózar, E., Robinson‐García, N., & Torres‐Salinas, D. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23056 · Cited by 272
Altmetric: enriching scholarly content with article‐level discussion and metrics
Adie, E. A., & William, R. O. E. (2012) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1087/20130103 · Cited by 224
Users, narcissism and control – tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century
Costas, R., & Wouters, P. F. (2012) · Cited by 195
Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents?
Martín‐Martín, A., Orduña‐Malea, E., Harzing, A.-W. K., & López‐Cózar, E. D. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.11.008 · Cited by 183
Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ?
Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Thelwall, M. A., Amyot, D., & Peters, I. (2014) · it - Information Technology · doi:10.1515/itit-2014-1048 · Cited by 160
Self-citationThe first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective
Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2011) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.12.002 · Cited by 114
Prins, A., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Wouters, P. F. (2016) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv049 · Cited by 112
Citation analysis with microsoft academic
Hug, S. E., Ochsner, M., & Brändle, M. P. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2247-8 · Cited by 112
Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective
Gutierrez, F. R. S., Beall, J., & Forero, D. A. (2015) · BioEssays · doi:10.1002/bies.201500011 · Cited by 68
Hutchins, B. I., Yuan, X., Anderson, J. M., et al. (2015) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/029629 · Cited by 68
Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?
Thelwall, M. A. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2557-x · Cited by 63
Self-citationMore precise methods for national research citation impact comparisons
Fairclough, R., & Thelwall, M. A. (2015) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.09.005 · Cited by 56
Self-citationThe Google Scholar Experiment: How To Index False Papers And Manipulate Bibliometric IndicatorsPreprint
López‐Cózar, E. D., Robinson‐García, N., & Torres‐Salinas, D. (2013) · Institutional Repository of the University of Granada (University of Granada) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.1042920 · Cited by 53
Microsoft Academic is one year old: the Phoenix is ready to leave the nest
Harzing, A.-W. K., & Alakangas, S. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2454-3 · Cited by 44
A critical evaluation of the algorithm behind the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR)
Janssens, A. C. J. W., Goodman, M., Powell, K. R., & Gwinn, M. (2017) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2002536 · Cited by 42
Thelwall, M. A. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.11.001 · Cited by 41
Self-citationThelwall, M. A. (2018) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 35
Self-citationDimensions - A Collaborative Approach to Enhancing Research Discovery
Resources, D., Adams, J., Jones, P., Porter, S., Szomszor, M., Draux, H., & Osipov, I. (2018) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.5783160 · Cited by 15
Dimensions - A Collaborative Approach to Enhancing Research Discovery
Resources, D., Adams, J. R., Jones, P., et al. (2018) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.5783160.v1 · Cited by 14
Chorus, C. G. (2015) · European journal of transport and infrastructure research · doi:10.18757/ejtir.2015.15.3.3075 · Cited by 7
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World
Pranckutė, R. (2021) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications9010012 · Cited by 2,696
The Journal Coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A Comparative Analysis
Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5 · Cited by 2,342
Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review
Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera‐Viedma, E., Santisteban‐Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. J. (2020) · El Profesional de la Informacion · doi:10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03 · Cited by 1,992
Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4 · Cited by 1,018
Self-citationMartín‐Martín, A., Thelwall, M. A., Orduña‐Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2020) · LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · Cited by 916
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Thelwall, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Wolverhampton (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Thelwall, Mike
- ORCID
- Thelwall, Mike
- Venue
- Journal of Informetrics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-05
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 430-435
- ISSN
- 1751-1577 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2793174271
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 8
- FWCI
- 15.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of Informetrics (publishedVersion)
- Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses (University of Wolverhampton) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information
- Keywords
- Scopus, Web of Science, citation counts, research impact assessment, research databases, food science research, research evaluation, bibliographic database comparison
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
