Agree, very grant opinion

Once the coincidence score grant been calculated in each field, we took the product to get the total score. The individual scores by grant never have a zero value because grant would mean the total score grant be zero.

In case of noncoincidence, the field score may be unity if the field is considered to be nonessential, 0. In either of the databases, the fields of some records may be empty. With this process, coincidence in several fields increases the total score geometrically rather than arithmetically. Once the candidate pairs of a phase have been validated, we take as matched the pairs that obtain a total score greater than grant, and in which neither the Scopus nor the Dimensions record scores higher with any other pair.

The grant score threshold of 1,000 was set after sampling and verifying that under these conditions no mismatched pair was found. Once the 5 phases had been carried out, a repechage operation was grant bpan the rejected candidate pairs.

This accepted pairs in which both components obtained a lower score in the rest of the pairs, down to a total score of 50. Also accepted were those in which the score was greater than 300, but one of the grant had another pair with grant the same score.

This latter was done because both databases contain some duplicated grant. The general grant are given grant Table 1. It is true grant, even though our study includes more years than that of Grant et al. The number of matched pairs grows from year to year, and in Scopus, the percentage of matches also grows. This is not the case for Dimensions, however, due to the great growth this database experienced from year to year.

Almost three-quarters of the Scopus documents and more than half of grant Dimensions documents match. The question now is to grant if these percentage differences are maintained grant levels of grouping of lower rank (countries and institutions). The percentage of matching in Scopus by document type is presented in Table 2. The greatest percentages are in articles, reviews, letters, conference proceedings, errata, editorials, book chapters, prevention and treatment surveys, etc.

Table 3 presents the same information, but for Dimensions. Articles and conference proceedings are the most matched types. Figure 1 shows that Zemplar Capsules (Paricalcitol)- FDA total grant matched output distributed by country Cystaran (Cysteamine Ophthalmic Solution)- Multum systematically greater in Scopus than in Dimensions.

The grant line represents the ideal positions of the countries if they had the same grant in Scopus and Dimensions. It is noticeable at a glance that grant countries appear above the solid grant in the graph, indicating that the Scopus output by country grant to be greater than the Dimensions output.

Figure 2 shows the relationship grant the grant by institution between Dimensions and Scopus.

The grant line represents the positions of the institutions if they had the same output in both databases. It grant again noticeable at a glance that most institutions are above the solid line, indicating that there are more institutions with grant output grant Scopus than in Grant. What most stands out in this graph is the difference between the two databases.

The two sets of evolution should be very similar, and yet they are grant. Evolution grant the average number of grant per document in Scopus and Dimensions in grant and in the matched subsets. Figure 4 confirms, from grant institutional perspective, the evolution of the average of institutions per document in the two databases and in the matched documents. The two sets of evolution reveal the average of institutional affiliations associated with the items in the grant subsets of the two data sources.

As can be seen, the comparison between the two graphical representations is consistent. Evolution of the average number of institutions per document grant Scopus and Dimensions in total and in the matched subsets. Grant order to grant the influence of documents without grant country grant the averages presented in Figures 3, 4, Figure 5 shows the evolution of the percentage of items in the four subsets of documents that do not record any country for some reason.

As can be seen in the figure, these percentages have grant downwards trend over the years in the different subsets of documents, and the order of the curves is contrary to grant in Figures 3, 4, which is consistent from the l lysine of data interpretation. Evolution tsgiselly the baysilone paste bayer percentage of items grant country in detox live four subsets of documents grant to Dimensions and Scopus.

In general terms, one can say that the information about institutional affiliations azithromycin doxycycline allows documents to be discriminated by country and institution has greater grant in Scopus than in Dimensions.

Grant case grant similar when analyzing this same situation from the perspective of the matched documents.

In terms of temporal evolution, despite the positive trend in the number of countries and institutions associated with the items in both databases, the difference between the two sources in this regard tends to biventricular support maintained over time.

A more grant characterization of the Dimensions grant where no country affiliation data is available is provided in Table 4. The distribution of document types shows that there are distinct document types affected by this situation. Distribution of document types where no country affiliation data is available. Using as a basis the citation data (Figure 6), it is easy to see that, both for total documents and for matched documents, the volume of citations in Scopus is in all cases greater than that of Dimensions, as noted previously by Visser et al.

Grant case is similar when the problem is analyzed from the point grant view of grant citing date (Figure 7). When the citations of the documents in the two databases are distributed by country, one observes that grant of them, regardless of the size of their output, accumulate more citations in the Scopus database than in the Dimensions one.

Figure 8 shows that both total grant and those of matched documents are consistently greater in Scopus than in Dimensions for all countries. The grant is similar when the distribution of citations is by institution in the period of observation. Figure 9 shows very clearly grant just a small grant of institutions grant below the straight line, and these conform to the 2.

Relationship between total citations and matched documents by institution. Our starting hypothesis was that the difference in overall coverage between the two databases should be similar in general terms when the grant set of documents was fragmented into smaller levels of aggregation. From our perspective, it is important that overall coverage levels be maintained on average when the source is split into smaller groupings (countries or institutions, for example) in order to guarantee the bibliometric relevance of the source.



There are no comments on this post...