Open access resources: the efficiency of metadata and services
https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-251046
Abstract
The development of open science ideas and principles has facilitated the spread of open access resources (OARs), creating a wide range of information retrieval and bibliometric capabilities for analyzing various documents, journals, authors, organizations, research areas, thanks to the increased effectiveness of metadata, the links between resources, the implementation of proprietary classification systems in OARs, and data enrichment using artificial intelligence technologies. Metadata plays a crucial role in enhancing the effectiveness of OARs, as it serves as a means of document management, ensuring their identification, systematization, visibility, search, discovery, and access control in information retrieval systems. However, unified approaches are lacking regarding 1) the representation of metadata in OARs, 2) the development of classification schemes and services for processing search results, and 3) the presentation of search fields. This exacerbates the problems often encountered when working with information resources related to metadata quality (incompleteness, inaccuracy, errors, inconsistencies, subjectivity in subjectification and systematization) and their interoperability during automatic exchange, processing, and use. The study aims to analyze the effectiveness of metadata representation in major scientific OARs and their functionality for document search and processing. To achieve this goal, the first stage involved a content analysis of 10 reviews from 2023–2025. These reviews compared major scientific OARs (Crossref, Dimensions, OpenAlex, Scilit, Semantic Scholar, The Lens, etc.) with international scientometric databases Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection in terms of metadata completeness and quality, confirming the potential of OARs as bibliographic sources for scientific information retrieval. To validate these findings, the second stage involved an analysis of metadata in four selected major scientific OARs (OpenAlex, Dimensions, The Lens, and Semantic Scholar), assessing their service functionality for conducting bibliometric research and visualizing the resulting data. Furthermore, the proprietary or adopted document classification systems within the OARs were examined, along with the specifics of exporting large volumes of metadata. A comparative analysis of OpenAlex, Dimensions, The Lens, and Semantic Scholar revealed differences in field completeness, analytical services, export limitations, as well as typical metadata quality vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, the prospects for the development of these resources for scientific information retrieval and research are acknowledged, considering their continuously evolving functionality and the use of reliable sources for data enrichment, such as Crossref, ORCID, ROR, etc. The presence of international identifiers, the resolution of ambiguities in description, and addressing issues in document indexing when assigning additional metadata fields in OARs will enable their use as effective information resources. This will contribute to forming a more transparent research landscape, enable multiparameter analysis of the development of scientific fields and collaboration, facilitate multifaceted study of research topics, and enhance the visibility of publications in the global information space. It will also increase the citation potential of authors, scientific organizations, and journals through inclusion in a greater number of interconnected resources, provision of additional metadata for publication, and the availability of service capabilities and functionalities for further processing and presentation using visualization tools, knowledge mapping instruments, and others.
Keywords
open science,
open access resources,
scientific journals,
scientific publications,
metadata,
information retrieval,
researcher identifier,
ORCID,
organization identifier,
ROR,
digital object identifier,
DOI,
altmetrics,
bibliometric indicators,
data visualization
Supporting agencies: The study was carried out within the framework of the scientific project of the State Public Scientific and Technological Library of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (2022-2026) «Development of a Model for the Functioning of a Scientific Library in the Information Ecosystem of Open Science», № 122041100150-3.
About the Author
Natalya S. Redkina
State Public Scientific Technological Library, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dr. Sci. (Educ.), Head of Department of the Open Science Research Department, State Public Scientific Technological Library, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
References
1. ГОСТ Р ИСО 23081-1— 2008 Процессы управления документами. Метаданные для документов. Часть 1 (утв. и введен в действие Приказом Ростехрегулирования от 13.11.2008 N 310-ст) М.: Стандартинформ; 2009. 24 с.
2. GOST R ISO 23081-1-2008 Document management processes. Metadata for documents. Part 1 (approved and entered into force by order of rosteh regulation dated 13.11.2008 N 310-st) M.: Standardinform; 2009. 24 p. (In Russ.).
3. Widad E., Alaoui I.E.l., Gahi Y. Metadata Quality Dimensions for Big Data Use Cases. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Big Data, Modelling and Machine Learning. 2021. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010737400003101
4. Salvesen L. M. The Future of Enriched, Linked, Open and Filtered Metadata Making Sense of IFLA LRM, RDA, Linked Data and BIBFRAME. London. UK: Facet Publishing. 2024. 222 p. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship. 2024;36(4):336–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2024.2417127
5. Frederick D.E. Are library data and metadata dying or nearly dead? A discussion for everyone. Library Hi Tech News. 2024;41(10):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-08-2024-0148
6. Roy N., Gayan, M. A. Metadata Quality of Selected South Asian National Libraries’ Web OPACs: An Assessment of Cataloging Errors. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly. 2025;63(1):57–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2025.2451158
7. Céspedes L., Kozlowski D., Pradier C., Sainte-Marie M. H., Shokida N. S., Benz P., Poitras C., Ninkov A. B., Ebrahimy S., Ayeni P., Filali S., Li B., Larivière V. Evaluating the linguistic coverage of OpenAlex: An assessment of metadata accuracy and completeness. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2025;1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24979
8. Culbert J., Hobert A., Jahn N., Haupka N., Schmidt M., Donner P., Mayr P. Reference coverage analysis of OpenAlex compared to Web of Science and Scopus. arXiv:2401.16359. 2024. https:doi:10.48550/arXiv.2401.16359
9. Turgel I.D., Chernova O.A. Open Science Alternatives to Scopus and the Web of Science: A Case Study in Regional Resilience. Publications. 2024;12(4: 43). https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12040043
10. Лутай А.В., Любушко Е.Э. Сравнение качества метаданных в БД CrossRef, Lens, OpenAlex, Scopus, Semantic Scholar, Web of Science Core Collection. Российский фонд фундаментальных исследований. URL: https://podpiska.rcsi.science/storage/reports2021/2022_meta_quality.html
11. Lutai A.V., Lyubushko E.E. Comparison of the quality of metadata in the CrossRef, Lens, OpenAlex, Scopus, Semantic Scholar, Web of Science Core Collection databases. Russian Foundation for Basic Research. Available from: https://podpiska.rcsi.science/storage/reports2021/2022_meta_quality.html (accessed: 03.10.2025).
12. Quirós D., Joaquina L., Ortega J. L. Comparing Bibliographic Descriptions in Seven Free-Access Databases. 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023). 2023. https://doi.org/10.55835/6436c590b3340c364be5b2c7
13. Мазов Н. А., Гуреев В. Н. Ведение базы данных публикаций организации с использованием библиографических ресурсов открытого доступа. Научно-техническая информация. Серия 1: Организация и методика информационной работы. 2023;9:20-32. https://doi.org/10.36535/0548-0019-2023-09-4
14. Mazov N. A., Gureev V. N. Maintaining a database of organizational publications using open-access bibliographic resources. Scientific and technical information. Series 1: Organization and methods of information work. 2023; 9: 20–32. https://doi.org/10.36535/0548-0019-2023-09-4
15. Schares E. Comparing Funder Metadata in OpenAlex and Dimensions. OpenISU. 2024. https://doi.org/10.31274/b8136f97.ccc3dae4
16. Singh P., Singh V.K., Kanaujia A. Metadata fields in Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions and OpenAlex Databases: An exploratory analysis of the possibilities and ease of doing scientometric analyses. Fifth International Conference on Science & Technology Metrics (STMet 2024). 2024. pp. 214-222. https://doi.org/10.6025/stm/2024/5/214-222
17. Velez-Estevez A., Perez I.J., García-Sánchez P., Moral-Munoz J.A., Cobo M.J. New Trends in Bibliometric APIs: A Comparative Analysis. Information Processing & Management. 2023;60(4): 103385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103385
18. Walters W. H. Comparing conventional and alternative mechanisms of discovering and accessing the scientific literature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2025;122 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2503051122
19. Редькина Н.С. Ресурсы открытого доступа и инструменты для определения трендов развития науки. Научные и технические библиотеки. 2025;(4):90-113. https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2025-4-90-113.
20. Redkina N.S. Open access resources and tools for determining the development trends of science. Scientific and technical libraries. 2025;4:90-113. https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2025-4-90-113
Review
For citations:
Redkina N.S. Open access resources: the efficiency of metadata and services. Science Editor and Publisher. 2025;10(2):289-306. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-251046
Views:
272
JATS XML
Email this article 
