A Comparative Analysis of Citation Counts in Sinta, Dimensions, and Scopus: A Study of Journals in Islamic Economics, Finance, and Business
Abstract
This study compared the citation counts of journals in economics, finance, and Islamic business (JEFIB) indexed in three prominent databases: Sinta, Dimensions, and Scopus. JEFIB is indexed in Sinta, with citation data also available from the Dimensions and Scopus databases. A total of five journals were selected from each Sinta category, with the highest citation count from each database—Sinta, Dimensions, and Scopus—being recorded. The citation data were then tabulated for each journal group based on the highest counts from these three databases. The findings reveal that citation counts in Sinta do not always align with those in Dimensions and Scopus, primarily due to differences in the data sources used for citation tracking. Sinta relies on data from Google Scholar, encompassing a broader range of publications, while Dimensions tracks citations from journals indexed by Crossref. Scopus citations, on the other hand, depend on the total number of citations of journal articles included in the Scopus database. Furthermore, the citation counts are influenced by factors such as the number of journal volumes, the total number of published documents, and the accreditation level of the journal. This study underscores the importance of considering citation data from multiple platforms—Sinta, Dimensions, and Scopus—when evaluating the impact of journals within the global academic community.
Downloads
References
Ahmar, A. S., Kurniasih, N., Irawan, D. E., Sutiksno, D. U., Napitupulu, D., Setiawan, M. I., Simarmata, J., Hidayat, R., Busro, B., Abdullah, D., Rahim, R., & Abraham, J. (2018). Lecturers’ understanding on indexing databases of SINTA, DOAJ, Google Scholar, SCOPUS, and Web of Science: A study of Indonesians. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 954, No. 1, p. 012026). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/954/1/012026
Beck, S. E., & Manuel, K. (2008). Practical Research Methods for Librarians and Information Professionals, New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers
Donner, P. (2018). Effect of publication month on citation impact. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 330–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.012
Finardi, U. (2013). Correlation between Journal Impact Factor and Citation Performance: An experimental study. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.004
Geisler, E. (2005). The measurement of scientific activity : Research directions in linking philosophy of science and metrics of sciences and technology outputs. Scientometrics, 62(2), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0020-x
Guerrero-Bote VP, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Mendoza A and de Moya-Anegón F (2021) Comparative Analysis of the Bibliographic Data Sources Dimensions and Scopus: An Approach at the Country and Institutional Levels. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. 5, 593494. https://10.3389/frma.2020.593494
Harzing, A. W., Alakangas, S., & Adams, D. (2014). hIa: An individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences. Scientometrics, 99(3), 811-821. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
Ibrahim, C. (2023). Top Indonesia's journal efficiency analysis: Bibliometrics (Scientific Strength) and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Khizanah al-Hikmah: Jurnal Ilmu Perpustakaan, Informasi, dan Kearsipan, 11(2), 147-163. https://doi.org/10.24252/kah.v11i2a1
Ikram, M. T., & Afzal, M. T. (2019). Aspect based citation sentiment analysis using linguistic patterns for better comprehension of scientific knowledge. Scientometrics, 119(1), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03028-9
Kamrani, P., Dorsch, I., & Stock, W. G. (2021). Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?. Scientometrics, 126(7), 5489-5508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03968-1
Kulkanjanapiban, P., & Silwattananusarn, T. (2022). Comparative analysis of Dimensions and Scopus bibliographic data sources: An approach to university research productivity. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), 12(1), 706-720. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v12i1.pp706-720
Leydesdorff, L., & Amsterdamska, O. (1990). Dimensions of Citation Analysis. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15(3), 305-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399001500303
MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342–349. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(198909)40:5%3C342::AID-ASI7%3E3.0.CO;2-U
Maricic, S., Spaventi, J., Pavicic, L., & Pifat-Mrzljak, G. (1998). Citation Context versus the Frequency Counts of Citation History. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 49(6), 530–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(19980501)49:6<530::AID-ASI7>3.0.CO;2-8
Marlina, E., Setiorini, R.A., & Tambunan, K. (2015). Duplikasi artikel jurnal ilmiah Indonesia: analisis kualitas. Widyariset, 18(1), 115–126. https://download.garuda.kemdikbud.go.id/article.php?article=351305&val=8084&title=DUPLICATION%20IN%20INDONESIAN%20JOURNAL%20ARTICLE%20QUALITY%20ANALYSIS
Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics, 126(1), 871-906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
Mavodza, J. (2020). The evolving landscape of research methods in library and information science. Handbook of Research on Connecting Research Methods for Information Science Research, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1471-9.ch001
Mitrzyk, B. M. (2008). Practical research methods for librarians and information professionals. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 96(4), 388. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2568831/
Mondal, H., & Mondal, S. (2023). Digital object identifier: What it is and why it matters?. Indian Journal of Skin Allergy, 2(2), 77-80. https://doi.org/10.25259/ijsa_20_2023
Moed, H. F., & Halevi, G. (2015). Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 1988-2002. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23334
Özkent, Y. (2022). Social media usage to share information in communication journals: An analysis of social media activity and article citations. Plos one, 17(2), e0263725. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263725
Saputra, A. (2020), Pemanfaatan Science and Technology Index (SINTA) untuk publikasi karya ilmiah dan pencarian jurnal nasional terakreditasi. Media Pustakawan, 27(1), 56-68. https://doi.org/10.37014/medpus.v27i1.674
Sandes-Guimarães, L. V., & Costa, S. M. D. S. (2012). Brazilian scientific journals that use the Open Journals Systems (OJS): a Quality Analysis. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 9(1), 61–88. https://doi.org/10.4301/S1807-17752012000100004
Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126, 5113-5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5
Stahlschmidt, S., & Stephen, D. (2022). From indexation policies through citation networks to normalized citation impacts: Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions as varying resonance chambers. Scientometrics, 127(5), 2413-2431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04309-6
Thelwall, M. (2018). Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?. Journal of informetrics, 12(2), 430-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.006
Sudarsono, H., Ardiami, K. P., & Anto, M. B. H. (2024). Citation trends in Islamic economics, finance, and business journals indexed by doaj and sinta. Jurnal Geuthèë: Penelitian Multidisiplin, 7(2), 82-95. https://doi.org/10.52626/jg.v7i2.356
Veer, D. K., Khiste, G. P., & Deshmukh, R. K. (2018). Publication productivity of ‘Information Literacy’in Scopus during 2007 to 2016. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 8(2), 171–183. : https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-7315.2018.00036.9
Visser, M., Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2021). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative science studies, 2(1), 20-41. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112
Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2012). A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2378-2392. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748
Xia, J., Lynette Myers, R., & Kay Wilhoite, S. (2011). Multiple open access availability and citation impact. Journal of Information Science, 37(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551510389358
Zahedi, Z., & Haustein, S. (2018). On the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and Mendeley readership counts: A large-scale analysis of Web of Science publications. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOI.2017.12.005
Copyright (c) 2024 Heri Sudarsono, Kinanthi Putri Ardiami, Kinanthi Putri Ardiami, Mohammad Bekti Hendrie Anto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
By submitting your manuscript to our journal, you are following Copyright and License