Why are these publications missing? Uncovering the reasons behind the exclusion of documents in free‐access scholarly databases

This study analyses the coverage of seven free‐access bibliographic databases (Crossref, Dimensions—non‐subscription version, Google Scholar, Lens, Microsoft Academic, Scilit, and Semantic Scholar) to identify the potential reasons that might cause the exclusion of scholarly documents and how they c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2024-01, Vol.75 (1), p.43-58
Main Authors: Delgado‐Quirós, Lorena, Aguillo, Isidro F., Martín‐Martín, Alberto, López‐Cózar, Emilio Delgado, Orduña‐Malea, Enrique, Ortega, José Luis
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bibliographic data bases
Bibliographic Databases
Bibliographic literature
Bibliographies
Documents
Lenses
Search engines
Selection Criteria
Semantics
Semiotics
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study analyses the coverage of seven free‐access bibliographic databases (Crossref, Dimensions—non‐subscription version, Google Scholar, Lens, Microsoft Academic, Scilit, and Semantic Scholar) to identify the potential reasons that might cause the exclusion of scholarly documents and how they could influence coverage. To do this, 116 k randomly selected bibliographic records from Crossref were used as a baseline. API endpoints and web scraping were used to query each database. The results show that coverage differences are mainly caused by the way each service builds their databases. While classic bibliographic databases ingest almost the exact same content from Crossref (Lens and Scilit miss 0.1% and 0.2% of the records, respectively), academic search engines present lower coverage (Google Scholar does not find: 9.8%, Semantic Scholar: 10%, and Microsoft Academic: 12%). Coverage differences are mainly attributed to external factors, such as web accessibility and robot exclusion policies (39.2%–46%), and internal requirements that exclude secondary content (6.5%–11.6%). In the case of Dimensions, the only classic bibliographic database with the lowest coverage (7.6%), internal selection criteria such as the indexation of full books instead of book chapters (65%) and the exclusion of secondary content (15%) are the main motives of missing publications.
ISSN:2330-1635
2330-1643
DOI:10.1002/asi.24839