CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 227

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Number of Scholarly Documents on the Public Web

Khabsa, Madian, Giles, C. Lee·2014·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0093949PMC PMC4015892
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0093949

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 To estimate the number of scientific documents on the web, , let equal the number of citations found in both Scholar and MAS for a collection of papers, and let be the number of citations reported by Scholar. Then is an estimate of ,the fraction of documents indexed by MAS. The total number of documents N would be where is the size of MAS.
Figure 1 To estimate the number of scientific documents on the web, , let equal the number of citations found in both Scholar and MAS for a collection of papers, and let be the number of citations reported by Scholar. Then is an estimate of ,the fraction of documents indexed by MAS. The total number of documents N would be where is the size of MAS.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Relative number of documents by scholarly search engines and databases. Total and Google Scholar are estimates.
Figure 2 Relative number of documents by scholarly search engines and databases. Total and Google Scholar are estimates.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 The relative number of documents on the web for each of the 15 fields as defined by MAS.
Figure 3 The relative number of documents on the web for each of the 15 fields as defined by MAS.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. J Bar-Ilan, 2008, Which h-index? a comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar, Scientometrics, 74, 257, 10.1007/s11192-008-0216-y · DOI
  2. J Bar-Ilan, 2010, Citations to the introduction to informetrics indexed byWOS, Scopus and Google Scholar, Scientometrics, 82, 495, 10.1007/s11192-010-0185-9 · DOI
  3. BC Björk, 2009, Scientific journal publishing—yearly volume and open access availability, Information Research, 14, 391
  4. RV Noorden, 2013, Open access: The true cost of science publishing, Nature, 495, 426, 10.1038/495426a · DOI · Paper page
  5. S Lawrence, 1998, Searching the world wide web, Science, 280, 98, 10.1126/science.280.5360.98 · DOI
  6. S Lawrence, 1999, Accessibility of information on the web, Nature, 400, 107, 10.1038/21987 · DOI
  7. K Bharat, 1998, A technique for measuring the relative size and overlap of public web search engines, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30, 379, 10.1016/S0169-7552(98)00127-5 · DOI
  8. Dobra A, Fienberg SE (2004) How large is the world wide web. Web Dynamics: 23–44. · DOI
  9. AZ Broder, 1997, Syntactic clustering of the web, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 29, 1157, 10.1016/S0169-7552(97)00031-7 · DOI
  10. M Norris, 2008, The citation advantage of open-access articles, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1963, 10.1002/asi.20898 · DOI
  11. Hogg R, Tanis E (2010) Probability and Statistical Inference. Pearson/Prentice Hall.
  12. Y Gargouri, 2010, Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research, PloS ONE, 5, e13636, 10.1371/journal.pone.0013636 · DOI
  13. C Hajjem, 2005, Ten-year cross-disciplinary comparison of the growth of open access and how it increases research citation impact, IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 28, 39
  14. BC Björk, 2010, Open access to the scientific journal literature: situation 2009, PloS one, 5, e11273, 10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Khabsa, M., & Giles, C. L.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2014-05-09
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
e93949
ISSN
1932-6203
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0093949
PMC
PMC4015892
Cited by
227
References
0
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (unspecified)

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