Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
eupolicy.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
This Mastodon server is a friendly and respectful discussion space for people working in areas related to EU policy. When you request to create an account, please tell us something about you.

Administered by:

Server stats:

202
active users

eupolicy.social: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.4.3

#WebofScience

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
*
petersuber

The University of Utrecht is canceling the #WebOfScience and offering training sessions on #OpenAlex.
uu.nl/en/news/access-to-web-of

"Discontinuing Web of Science is a logical step that fits in with the UU vision on #OpenScience. Closed commercial databases, such as Web of Science, are not in line with our desire to work with open research information as much as possible. The UU signed the #BarcelonaDeclaration in 2024 to this effect. The use of Journal Impact Factors [#JIFs] is also not in line with our vision of Open Science…With the funds freed up by not renewing the licence, we will continue to invest in open source research and infrastructure."

Utrecht UniversityAccess to Web of Science will end on 1 January 2026The university library has decided not to renew the licence for access to the Web of Science citation database (including Journal Citation Reports).
ndocist

Journal Article: “Data Sources Used in #Bibliometrics 1978–2022: From Proprietary Databases to the Great Wide Open”
Stable pattern with #webofscience and #Scopus
Current emphasis on #opensource
Are we entering the great wide open, or will established proprietary databases remain a dominating source?
infodocket.com/2025/05/16/jour

Library Journal infoDOCKETJournal Article: “Data Sources Used in Bibliometrics 1978–2022: From Proprietary Databases to the Great Wide Open”The article linked below was recently published by JASIST (Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology). Title Data Sources Used In Bibliometrics 1978–2022: From Proprietary Databases To The Great Wide Open Authors Camilla Hertil Lindelöw Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås, Borås, Sweden Björn Hammarfelt Swedish School of Library […]
Ludo Waltman

Earlier this week an opinion piece authored by me and a number of great colleagues was published on the @upstream blog. Our piece introduces criteria for innovation-friendly bibliographic databases doi.org/10.54900/d3ck1-skq19.

We express our deep concerns about the treatment of @eLife by the #WebOfScience and #Scopus databases. We see this as an example of databases hindering rather than supporting innovation in scholarly communication and research assessment.

@cwts

Upstream · Criteria for Bibliographic Databases in a Well-Functioning Scholarly Communication and Research Assessment EcosystemBibliographic databases should support innovation and experimentation. Here, we offer four criteria for innovation-friendly bibliographic databases. We urge the global research community to use databases that support and do not hinder innovation in scholarly communication and research assessment.
Ludo Waltman

Good news at #CNRS Open Science Day:

"CNRS's cancellation of #Scopus subscription will help support its full transition to open, non-commercial model, a point reiterated by Antoine Petit ... 'We will eventually need to stop using commercial databases for bibliometrics and bibliography'. In the meantime CNRS has maintained subscription to Clarivate's #WebOfScience database while free bibliographic databases are being developed like open access not-for-profit solution @OpenAlex."

@BarcelonaDORI

Continued thread
Ludo Waltman

The decision by #WebOfScience "therefore rewards journals for continuing the unhelpful practice of keeping peer review information hidden and unintentionally presenting incomplete and inadequate studies as sound science and punishes those journals that are more transparent."

Ludo Waltman

Bodo Stern at #HHMI is spot on in his assessment of the decision by #WebOfScience to stop indexing @eLife articles: "Rather than helping move scholarly communication forward, Web of Science, by punishing a leader in the field, is in fact holding it back."

coalition-s.org/blog/how-the-w

@cOAlitionS_OA

www.coalition-s.orgHow the Web of Science takes a step back | Plan S<p>The Web of Science, a major commercial indexing service of scientific journals operated by Clarivate, recently decided to remove eLife from its Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). eLife will only be partially indexed in Web of Science as part of its Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). The justification offered for this decision is that eLife’s […]</p>
Ludo Waltman

Important reflections by @eLife on #WebOfScience decision to discontinue full indexing of eLife elifesciences.org/inside-elife.

"As journals that are partially indexed are not given Impact Factor, we won't receive one when metric is updated in June 2025. This is despite fact that partial feed would only include papers that WoS judges above threshold for inclusion and despite fact that papers we deem below this threshold can subsequently be published in SCIE-indexed journals."

eLifeThe eLife Model: An update on progress following changes in Web of Science indexing statusFollowing the decision that eLife will not receive an Impact Factor in 2025, we share an update on how our model is doing since we were first placed “on hold” by Web of Science, and what we’re up to now.
TrendingLive feeds
About