Dataset Information

How are exclusively data journals indexed in major scholarly databases? An examination of four databases.

ABSTRACT: The data paper is becoming a popular way for researchers to publish their research data. The growing numbers of data papers and journals hosting them have made them an important data source for understanding how research data is published and reused. One barrier to this research agenda is a lack of knowledge as to how data journals and their publications are indexed in the scholarly databases used for quantitative analysis. To address this gap, this study examines how a list of 18 exclusively data journals (i.e., journals that primarily accept data papers) are indexed in four popular scholarly databases: the Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, and OpenAlex. We investigate how comprehensively these databases cover the selected data journals and, in particular, how they present the document type information of data papers. We find that the coverage of data papers, as well as their document type information, is highly inconsistent across databases, which creates major challenges for future efforts to study them quantitatively, which should be addressed in the future.

SUBMITTER: Jiao C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10600123 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How are exclusively data journals indexed in major scholarly databases? An examination of four databases.

Jiao Chenyue C Li Kai K Fang Zhichao Z

Scientific data 20231025 1

The data paper is becoming a popular way for researchers to publish their research data. The growing numbers of data papers and journals hosting them have made them an important data source for understanding how research data is published and reused. One barrier to this research agenda is a lack of knowledge as to how data journals and their publications are indexed in the scholarly databases used for quantitative analysis. To address this gap, this study examines how a list of 18 exclusively da ...[more]

PMID: 37880300

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany scholarly journals have established their own data-related policies, which specify their enforcement of data sharing, the types of data to be submitted, and their procedures for making data available. However, except for the journal impact factor and the subject area, the factors associated with the overall strength of the data sharing policies of scholarly journals remain unknown. This study examines how factors, including impact factor, subject area, type of journal publisher, and geographical location of the publisher are related to the strength of the data sharing policy.MethodsFrom each of the 178 categories of the Web of Science's 2017 edition of Journal Citation Reports, the top journals in each quartile (Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4) were selected in December 2018. Of the resulting 709 journals (5%), 700 in the fields of life, health, and physical sciences were selected for analysis. Four of the authors independently reviewed the results of the journal website searches, categorized the journals' data sharing policies, and extracted the characteristics of individual journals. Univariable multinomial logistic regression analyses were initially conducted to determine whether there was a relationship between each factor and the strength of the data sharing policy. Based on the univariable analyses, a multivariable model was performed to further investigate the factors related to the presence and/or strength of the policy.ResultsOf the 700 journals, 308 (44.0%) had no data sharing policy, 125 (17.9%) had a weak policy, and 267 (38.1%) had a strong policy (expecting or mandating data sharing). The impact factor quartile was positively associated with the strength of the data sharing policies. Physical science journals were less likely to have a strong policy relative to a weak policy than Life science journals (relative risk ratio [RRR], 0.36; 95% CI [0.17-0.78]). Life science journals had a greater probability of having a weak policy relative to no policy than health science journals (RRR, 2.73; 95% CI [1.05-7.14]). Commercial publishers were more likely to have a weak policy relative to no policy than non-commercial publishers (RRR, 7.87; 95% CI, [3.98-15.57]). Journals by publishers in Europe, including the majority of those located in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, were more likely to have a strong data sharing policy than a weak policy (RRR, 2.99; 95% CI [1.85-4.81]).ConclusionsThese findings may account for the increase in commercial publishers' engagement in data sharing and indicate that European national initiatives that encourage and mandate data sharing may influence the presence of a strong policy in the associated journals. Future research needs to explore the factors associated with varied degrees in the strength of a data sharing policy as well as more diverse characteristics of journals related to the policy strength.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe and compare the characteristics of scholars who reviewed for predatory or legitimate journals in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and reviewing and publishing behaviour.DesignLinkage of random samples of predatory journals and legitimate journals of the Cabells Scholarly Analytics' journal lists with the Publons database, employing the Jaro-Winkler string metric. Descriptive analysis of sociodemographic characteristics and reviewing and publishing behaviour of scholars for whom reviews were found in the Publons database.SettingPeer review of journal articles.ParticipantsReviewers who submitted peer review reports to Publons.MeasurementsNumbers of reviews for predatory journals and legitimate journals per reviewer. Academic age of reviewers, the total number of reviews, number of publications and number of reviews and publications per year.ResultsAnalyses included 183 743 unique reviews submitted to Publons by 19 598 reviewers. Six thousand and seventy-seven reviews were for 1160 predatory journals (3.31% of all reviews) and 177 666 reviews for 6403 legitimate journals (96.69%). Most scholars never submitted reviews for predatory journals (90.0% of all scholars); few scholars (7.6%) reviewed occasionally or rarely (1.9%) for predatory journals. Very few scholars submitted reviews predominantly or exclusively for predatory journals (0.26% and 0.35%, respectively). The latter groups of scholars were of younger academic age and had fewer publications and reviews than the first groups. Regions with the highest shares of predatory reviews were sub-Saharan Africa (21.8% reviews for predatory journals), Middle East and North Africa (13.9%) and South Asia (7.0%), followed by North America (2.1%), Latin America and the Caribbean (2.1%), Europe and Central Asia (1.9%) and East Asia and the Pacific (1.5%).ConclusionTo tackle predatory journals, universities, funders and publishers need to consider the entire research workflow and educate reviewers on concepts of quality and legitimacy in scholarly publishing.

Project description:IntroductionUnmet health-related social needs (HRSN) are among the drivers of disparities in morbidity and mortality during public health emergencies such as the novel coronavirus 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. Although emergency departments (ED) see a high volume of patients with HRSN, ED providers have limited time to complete detailed assessments of patients' HRSN and are not always able to provide up-to-date and comprehensive information to patients on available community resources. Electronic, geographically indexed resource database systems have the potential to provide an efficient way for emergency physicians to rapidly identify community resources in settings where immediate social work consultation is not accessible.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of papers examining the use of geographically indexed resource database systems in healthcare to better understand how these services can be used in emergency care. We then conducted simulated, standardized searches using two nationally available databases (211 and Aunt Bertha), applied to a single metropolitan area (Boston).ResultsOur systematic review found that most public health and screening interventions using nationally available databases have focused on chronic care needs. A small subset of publications demonstrated that these databases were mobilized during disasters to successfully aid vulnerable populations during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. A total of 408 standardized searches were conducted to identify community resources related to four domains of social needs (food, transportation, housing, and utilities). Although 99% of the resources identified by both databases were relevant to the search domains queried, a significant proportion of the resources identified by each database were restricted to a specific demographic (eg, veterans).ConclusionOur findings demonstrate that geographically indexed referral databases may be an effective tool to help ED providers connect patients to nearby community resources during public health emergencies. We recommend that EDs select a referral database based on the greatest number of resources that are not demographically restricted.

Dataset Information

How are exclusively data journals indexed in major scholarly databases? An examination of four databases.

Publications

How are exclusively data journals indexed in major scholarly databases? An examination of four databases.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets