Metadata consistency between J-STAGE public materials and academic bibliographic information services
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51094/jxiv.862Keywords:
J-STAGE, metadata, academic bibliographic information servicesformation, CiNii Research, Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, ScopusAbstract
The Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) operates J-STAGE, which publishes many scientific and technological publications from domestic academic societies and research institutions. Academic bibliographic information services provided by external organizations such as Web of Science and Scopus provide their own data, adding citation counts and other information to the data released by J-STAGE. These external data services are used to evaluate researchers, institutions, and journals, therefore, the consistency and accuracy of the data is extremely important. In this study, we obtained J-STAGE metadata and external organization's data for 10 J-STAGE publications and examined the consistency of the data.
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure
The authors declare no conflicts of interest associated with this manuscript.Downloads *Displays the aggregated results up to the previous day.
References
JST web, ‘J-STAGEの沿革’ Accessed: Aug. 28, 2024. : https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/static/pages/JstageHistory/-char/ja
科学技術会議政策委員会研究情報高度化小委員会"最先端の研究を効果的に遂行しうる情報利用システムのあり方について"1997年6月10日’. Accessed: Aug. 28, 2024. : https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/kagaku/joho/koudoka.htm#IV-1-(2)
独立行政法人 科学技術振興機構 知識基盤情報部電子ジャーナル担当, ‘JaLC DOIについて・・J-STAGE全記事DOI登録へ2013年1月’. Accessed: Aug. 28, 2024. : https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/static/files/ja/jalc_doi.pdf
科学技術振興機構, ‘J-STAGEとGoogle Scholarの連携向上について2016年5月26日’. Accessed: Aug. 28, 2024. : https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/static/files/ja/googlescholerrenkeikoujou.pdf
P. O. Seglen, ‘Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research’, BMJ, vol. 314, no. 7079, p. 497, 1997, Accessed: Sep. 01, 2024. : https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497
‘研究評価に関するサンフランシスコ宣言’. Accessed: Sep. 01, 2024. : https://sfdora.org/read/read-the-declaration-japanese/
林隆之,佐々木結, 沼尻保奈美, ‘研究評価改革とオープンサイエンス：国際的進展と日本の状況’, 情報の科学と技術, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 26–31, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.18919/JKG.73.1_26.
小泉周, ‘研究力の測り方 ─「質」, 「量」, そして「厚み」’, 学術の動向, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 12_64-12_67, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.5363/TITS.23.12_64.
文部科学省, ‘第１章 我が国の研究力の現状と課題’. Accessed: Sep. 02, 2024. https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpaa202201/1421221_00005.html
NISTEP, ‘科学技術・学術政策研究所(NISTEP)「科学技術指標2023（調査資料-328）」及び「科学研究のベンチマーキング2023（調査資料-329）」を公開しました2023年8月8日’. Accessed: Aug. 28, 2024. https://www.nistep.go.jp/archives/55391
E. Roldan-Valadez, S. Y. Salazar-Ruiz, R. Ibarra-Contreras, and C. Rios, ‘Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics’, Ir J Med Sci, vol. 188, no. 3, pp. 939–951, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1007/S11845-018-1936-5/TABLES/5.
R. Pranckutė, ‘Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World’, Publications 2021, Vol. 9, Page 12, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 12, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.3390/PUBLICATIONS9010012.
M. E. Falagas, E. I. Pitsouni, G. A. Malietzis, and G. Pappas, ‘Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses’, The FASEB Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 338–342, Feb. 2008, doi: 10.1096/FJ.07-9492LSF.
A. W. Harzing and S. Alakangas, ‘Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison’, Scientometrics, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 787–804, Feb. 2016, doi: 10.1007/S11192-015-1798-9/TABLES/4.
A. Martín-Martín, E. Orduna-Malea, M. Thelwall, and E. Delgado López-Cózar, ‘Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories’, J Informetr, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1160–1177, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1016/J.JOI.2018.09.002.
A. Martín-Martín, M. Thelwall, E. Orduna-Malea, and E. Delgado López-Cózar, ‘Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations’, Scientometrics, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 871–906, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1007/S11192-020-03690-4/FIGURES/10.
M. Visser, N. J. van Eck, and L. Waltman, ‘Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic’, Quantitative Science Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 20–41, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1162/QSS_A_00112.
V. K. Singh, P. Singh, M. Karmakar, J. Leta, and P. Mayr, ‘The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis’, Scientometrics, vol. 126, no. 6, pp. 5113–5142, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1007/S11192-021-03948-5/FIGURES/5.
I. Gerasimov, B. KC, A. Mehrabian, J. Acker, and M. P. McGuire, ‘Comparison of datasets citation coverage in Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Crossref, and DataCite’, Scientometrics, vol. 129, no. 7, pp. 3681–3704, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1007/S11192-024-05073-5/FIGURES/15.
J-STAGE web, ‘外部連携サービスの一覧’. Accessed: Aug. 28, 2024. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/static/pages/JstageServices/TAB1/-char/ja
J-STAGE web, ‘J-STAGE運用マニュアルＰＤＦ作成指針＜第3.0版＞2024年4月’. Accessed: Aug. 29, 2024. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/static/files/ja/j-stage_pdf_guideline.pdf
Downloads
Posted
Submitted: 2025-02-05 00:28:17 UTC
Published: 2025-02-12 23:26:27 UTC
License
Copyright (c) 2025
Nami Ikeda
Minoru Mizhata
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
