1 / 22

The Role of Abstract and Citation Databases in Supporting Data Repositories

The Role of Abstract and Citation Databases in Supporting Data Repositories. DataCite Workshop: Möglichkeiten und neue Lösungen im Forschungsdatenmanagement Köln - 12/12/2012 Michael Habib, MSLS Product Manager, Scopus habib@elsevier.com. More than 5,000 publishers

violet
Download Presentation

The Role of Abstract and Citation Databases in Supporting Data Repositories

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Role of Abstract and Citation Databases in Supporting Data Repositories DataCite Workshop: Möglichkeiten und neue Lösungen im Forschungsdatenmanagement Köln - 12/12/2012 Michael Habib, MSLS Product Manager, Scopus habib@elsevier.com

  2. More than 5,000 publishers • 1,900 Open Access journals • “Articles in Press” from more than 3,850 titles • Abstracts going back to 1823 • 40 languages covered 49M total records 28M post-1995 records 21M pre-1996 records 6.5k pre-1996 conf events 10.5k post-1995 conf events 5.3M total conference records (10%) 844k book items Broadest source for research answers 19,804 active titles 18,819 Peer reviewed journals 405 Trade journals 248 Conf. series 332 Book series A rich and extended coverage including 2 million new records are added each year via daily updates Total average processing time: 5 days

  3. More than 19,500 titles in Scopus, titles can be in more than one subject area Breadth of coverage across subject areas Health Sciences 6,300 • (100% Medline) • Nursing • Dentistry • etc., Social Sciences 6,350 • Psychology • Economics • Business • A&H • etc., Life Sciences 4,050 • Neuroscience • Pharmacology • Biology • etc., Physical Sciences 6,600 • Chemistry • Physics • Engineering • etc.,

  4. Scopus (Total: 19,809) Web of Science(Total: 12,311) 8,432 11,377 934 www.jisc-adat.com Broader coverage than nearest peer Scopus added value

  5. Broadest coverage of quality global content including Asia and emerging countries • 2,000 • … • 2,000 • 8,000 • 8,000 • 1,000 • 1,000 • 4,000 • 4,000 • 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 • 500 • 600 • 300 • 250 • 300 • 150 • 0 • Nearest Competitor • Scopus • 0 • 0 Elsevier constitutes approximately 15% of titles in Scopus

  6. Scopus Content Selection & Advisory Board (CSAB) More expansive coverage does not meanlower standards

  7. Scopus selection criteria Minimum criteria • Peer-review • English abstracts • Regular publication • References in Roman script • Publication ethics statement

  8. Titles reviewed (n=2,279, January 2011 – 15 May 2012) Acceptance rate Number of titles reviewed 2,279 titles reviewed of which 41% accepted

  9. (Researchers, N = 3824 ; study by Publishing Research Consortium, 2010) High importance but not easily accessible

  10. What is DataCite? • establish easier access to research data on the Internet • increase acceptance of research data as legitimate, citable contributions to the scholarly record • support data archiving that will permit results to be verified and re-purposed for future study. From: http://datacite.org/whatisdatacite emphasis my own

  11. Supplementary Material • Pro’s • Coupling of data and article • Peer review • Preservation (byte-wise) • Citation mechanism • Con’s • Limited data type support • Compatibility (format support) • Limited capacity • Data not centrally stored

  12. Connecting with Data Repositories • Supplementary material is not a perfect solution • Many poor solutions in use: data on PCs, university websites, personal homepages, ... • Data repositories: the community’s answer? • Scientists prefer independent data repositories above publishers • Domain-specific coordination • Centralized information “hubs” • “Raw data should be freelyaccessible to researchers” “... believe that, as a general principle, data sets, raw data outputs of research, and sets or subsets of that data should wherever possible be made freely accessible to other scholars ...”(Statement from STM & ALPSP, June 2006)

  13. ScienceDirect Examples *: with Application

  14. PANGAEA Supplementary Data http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-8398(86)90033-2

  15. What is DataCite? • establish easier access to research data on the Internet • increase acceptance of research data as legitimate, citable contributions to the scholarly record • support data archiving that will permit results to be verified and re-purposed for future study. From: http://datacite.org/whatisdatacite emphasis my own

  16. Scopus Example

  17. (Researchers, N = 3824 ; study by Publishing Research Consortium, 2010) High importance but not easily accessible

  18. Scopus priorities moving forward • Pilot with specific community of authors, publishers, and data repositories, to try and change behaviours (in concept phase) • Track, count, and analyze citations to Documents as proof of Data impact (research needs to be done) • Establish links from Scopus Document Records to related Data sets to improve discovery (PANGAEA first step, looking to expand) • Ingest and index Data Repository (DataCite) records and enable searching from Scopus (the future) • Track Citations from Documents to Data sets (the more distant future)

  19. Thank you Michael Habib, MSLS Product Manager, Scopus habib@elsevier.com http://twitter.com/habib http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8860-7565

More Related