ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2026
Author profiles in Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, ORCID, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar: a case report.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to benchmark the availability and accuracy of author profiles for 45 faculty members within the Auburn University College of Nursing. Profile availability in the database platforms Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions were analyzed alongside the author-driven platforms ORCID, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar to set an understanding for the potential efforts needed for profile curation, publication tracking, and research impact assessments moving forward. Case Presentation: Each of the six platforms were manually searched for faculty and name variations alongside both current and past institutional affiliations. All identified profiles were collected. Associated publication counts were recorded and database results were screened for accurate author identification. Among the author-driven platforms, ORCID had the highest adoption rate, with 64% of faculty, while ResearchGate and Google Scholar trailed with 38% and 16% faculty adoption, respectively. Web of Science offered profiles for 82% of faculty; Scopus offered profiles for 80% of faculty, and Dimensions only 53%. However, 53% of the associated publications were misattributed in Web of Science profiles compared to just 1% misattribution in Scopus and none in Dimensions. Conclusions: Among our faculty, Scopus offered the most efficient author profile platform, balancing profile availability, minimizing misattribution, and including avenues for early identification of new authors. While largely in line with previous study findings, this effort provided important contextual understandings of profile data availability which can be used to inform research impact assessments and library services supporting author profiles for highlighting scholarly influence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.