New study: "Non-selective databases (#Dimensions, #OpenAlex, #Scilit, and #TheLens) index a greater amount of retracted literature than do databases that rely their indexation on venue selection (#PubMed, #Scopus, and #WoS)…The high coverage of OpenAlex and Scilit could be explained by the inaccurate labeling of retracted documents in #Scopus, Dimensions, and The Lens."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-05034-y
SpringerLinkThe indexation of retracted literature in seven principal scholarly databases: a coverage comparison of dimensions, OpenAlex, PubMed, Scilit, Scopus, The Lens and Web of Science - ScientometricsIn this study, the coverage and overlap of retracted publications, retraction notices and withdrawals are compared across seven significant scholarly databases, with the aim to check for discrepancies, pinpoint the causes of those discrepancies, and choose the best product to produce the most accurate picture of retracted literature. Seven scholarly databases were searched to obtain all the retracted publications, retraction notices and withdrawal from 2000. Only web search interfaces were used, excepting in OpenAlex and Scilit. The findings demonstrate that non-selective databases (Dimensions, OpenAlex, Scilit, and The Lens) index a greater amount of retracted literature than do databases that rely their indexation on venue selection (PubMed, Scopus, and WoS). The key factors explaining these discrepancies are the indexation of withdrawals and proceeding articles. Additionally, the high coverage of OpenAlex and Scilit could be explained by the inaccurate labeling of retracted documents in Scopus, Dimensions, and The Lens. 99% of the sample is jointly covered by OpenAlex, Scilit and WoS. The study suggests that research on retracted literature would require querying more than one source and that it should be advisable to accurately identify and label this literature in academic databases.
