Abstract
Digital object identifiers (DOIs) are important metadata elements for indexing and interoperability, as well as for bibliometric studies in times of openness. This study analyses the use of DOIs in the cited references of articles by authors from Brazilian institutions, their possible influencing factors and differences among areas of knowledge. It measures the extent to which the citation datasets are open for reuse by others in terms of the availability of DOIs. 226,491 articles were retrieved from Web of Science (2012–2016), making a total of 8,707,120 cited references, 68% of which include DOIs. The results showed that the hard sciences have higher percentages of DOIs in their cited references. The factor type of collaboration showed higher percentages when there is international collaboration, being significantly different from the other categories. However, when the analysis was conducted inside the areas, the international collaboration was found to be different particularly in the soft sciences and a couple of other areas. The articles with DOI attributed, as well as those with mention of research funding, had a significantly higher percentage, even in the interaction with the areas of knowledge. Among the open access routes the green routes showed the highest percentages, followed by golden (DOAJ and other) and Bronze, but green routes articles proved to be not significantly different from those not openly accessible. Finally, the principal collaborating countries also showed the greatest influence on the DOI attribution, with the exception of Peru and South Africa. Our findings provide evidence that studies on the availability and usability of DOIs can assist researchers, by underlining the importance of making greater use of this persistent identifier, as well as to provide consistency to citation analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
“Open access status is provided across the Web of Science platform as a result of a partnership with Impactstory, a not-for-profit organization that recently launched a knowledgebase of Open Access (OA) content. This knowledge base makes it possible to discover and link to legal Gold or Bronze (free content at a publisher's website) and Green (e.g., author self-archived in a repository) OA versions. This partnership improves discoverability and access to article-level OA versions not only by adding more links to OA content, but also by prioritizing the links to the best version of OA content when multiple versions of an article are available”. Retrieved from https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/hp_results.html#dsy10670-TRS_open_access.
References
Albagli, S., Clínio, A., & Raychtock, S. (2014). Ciência Aberta: correntes interpretativas e tipos de ação. Liinc em Revista, 14, 15. https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v10i2.749.
Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36(1), 2–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440360102.
Boudry, C., & Chartron, G. (2017). Availability of digital object identifiers in publications archived by PubMed. Scientometrics, 110, 1453–1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2225-6.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1995). The social life of documents. First Monday, 1(1). Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/download/466/387.
Collins, S., Genova, F., Harrower, N., Hodson, S., Jones, S., Laaksonen, L., Mietchen, D., Petrauskaitė, R., & Wittenburg, P. (2018). Turning FAIR into reality: Final report and action plan from the European Commission expert group on FAIR data. https://doi.org/10.2777/1524.
Costas, R. (2017). General discussion on the most relevant characteristics of research infrastructures for scientometrics. In R. Mugnaini, A. Fujino, & N. Y. Kobashi (Eds.), Bibliometrics and scientometrics in Brazil: Scientific research assessment infrastructure in the era of Big Data (pp. 43–65). ECA/USP: São Paulo.
Crossref. (2020). Crossref annual report & fact file 2018–19. https://doi.org/10.13003/y8ygwm5.
Digiampietri, L., Mugnaini, R., Trucolo, C., Delgado, K., Mena-Chalco, J., & Köhler, A. (2019). Geographic and disciplinary distribution of the Brazilian’s PHD community. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: Research Trends, 13(4), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.36311/1981-1640.2019.v13n4.07.
Fasae, J. K., & Oriogu, C. D. (2018). Digital object identifier and their use in accessing online scholarly materials in Africa. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1785.
Gibbs, W. W. (1995). Lost science in the third world. Scientific American, 273(2), 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0895-92.
Gorraiz, J., Melero-Fuentes, D., Gumpenberger, C., & Valderrama-Zurián, J. C. (2016). Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.008.
Guevara, M. R., Hartmann, D., Aristarán, M., Mendoza, M., & Hidalgo, C. A. (2016). The research space: using career paths to predict the evolution of the research output of individuals, institutions, and nations. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1695–1709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2125-9.
Gumpenberger, C., Sorz, J., Wieland, M., & Gorraiz, J. (2016). Humanities and social sciences in the bibliometric spotlight—Research output analysis at the University of Vienna and considerations for increasing visibility. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvw013.
Gusenbauer, M. (2019). Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases. Scientometrics, 118, 177–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5.
Haustein, S. (2016). Grand challenges in altmetrics: Heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics, 108(1), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1910-9.
Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120495. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120495.
Hug, S. E., & Brändle, M. P. (2017). The coverage of Microsoft Academic: Analyzing the publication output of a university. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1551–1571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2535-3.
International DOI Foundation. (2019). Factsheet. Key facts on digital object identifier system. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://www.doi.org/factsheets/DOIKeyFacts.html.
Jacsó, P. (2004). Link-enabled cited references. Online Information Review, 28(4), 306–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520410553804.
Juty, N., Wimalaratne, S. M., Soiland-Reyes, S., Kunze, J., Goble, C. A., & Clark, T. (2020). Unique, persistent, resolvable: Identifiers as the foundation of FAIR. Data Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00025.
Kikkawa, J., Takaku, M., & Yoshikane, F. (2016). DOI links on Wikipedia. In A. Morishima, A. Rauber, & C. Liew (Eds.), Digital libraries: Knowledge, information, and data in an open access society. ICADL 2016. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 10075). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49304-6_40.
Kraft, A., Dreyer, B., Löwe, P., & Ziedorn, F. (2017). 14 Years of PID services at the German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB): Connected frameworks, research data and lessons learned from a national research library perspective. Data Science Journal, 16, 36. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-036.
Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., Macaluso, B., Milojevic, S., Cronin, B., & Thelwall, M. (2014). arXiv E-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1157–1169. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23044.
Martín, S. G. (2013). El DOI en las revistas científicas del portal SciELO. Palabra Clave (La Plata), 3(1), 12–29.
Meneghini, R., & Packer, A. L. (2007). Is there science beyond English? EMBO Reports, 8(2), 112–116.
Montanari, F., & Packer, A. L. (2014). Criteria for the selection of journals to index and publish in the SciELO Network collections. In A. L. Packer, N. Cop, A. Luccisano, A. Ramalho, & E. Spinak (Eds.), SciELO—15 years of open access: An analytic study of open access and scholarly communication (pp. 67–80). Paris: UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.7476/9789230012373.
Mugnaini, R., Damaceno, R. J. P., Digiampietri, L. A., & Mena-Chalco, J. P. (2019). Panorama da produção científica do Brasil além da indexação: uma análise exploratória da comunicação em periódicos. Transinformação, 31, e190033. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889201931e190033.
Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., et al. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375.
Rodríguez-Yunta, L. (2013). Pensando en digital: uso del DOI en revistas españolas, una asignatura aún pendiente. Anuario ThinkEPI, 7, 164–168.
Rubim, I. C., & Braganholo, V. (2017). Detecting referential inconsistencies in electronic CV datasets. Journal of Brazilian Computer Society, 23(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13173-017-0052-0.
Ruiz, M. A. (2011). Countries emerging as major scientific powers. Revista brasileira de hematologia e hemoterapia, 33(3), 169–171. https://doi.org/10.5581/1516-8484.20110043.
Sugimoto, C. R., Murray, D. S., & Larivière, V. (2018). Open citations to open science. ISSI Blog. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from http://issi-society.org/blog/posts/2018/april/open-citations-to-open-science/.
van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2018). Crossref as a new source of citation data: A comparison with Web of Science and Scopus. CWTS Blog. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-r2s234.
Wang, W., Deng, L., You, B., Zhang, P., & Chen, Y. (2017). Digital object identifier and its use in core Chinese academic journals: A Chinese perspective. Learned Publishing, 31, 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1137.
Wang, X., Cui, Y., Xu, S., & Hu, Z. (2018). The state and evolution of Gold open access: A country and discipline level analysis. ASLIB Journal of Information Management, 70(5), 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-02-2018-0023.
Wouters, P., Ràfols, I., Oancea, A., Kamerlin, S. C. L., Holbrook, J. B., & Jacob, M. (2019). Indicator frameworks for fostering open knowledge practices in science and scholarship. Report of the Expert Group on Indicators for Researchers' Engagement with Open Science. https://doi.org/10.2777/445286.
Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491–1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1264-0.
Acknowledgements
This work would not have been possible without the financial support of São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) Grant #2012/00255-6 and CNPq (Research Productivity Grant #311237/2019-3).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
See Table
10.
Appendix 2
See Table
11.
Appendix 3
See Table
12.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mugnaini, R., Fraumann, G., Tuesta, E.F. et al. Openness trends in Brazilian citation data: factors related to the use of DOIs. Scientometrics 126, 2523–2556 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03663-7
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03663-7