A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef
首次比较Web of Science、Scopus和CrossRef对非洲期刊的覆盖情况，发现CrossRef覆盖45.6%的非洲期刊，远高于前两者，但整体覆盖率仍偏低，且存在学科和国别偏差。
Abstract This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich ( N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL ( N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% ( N = 166) and 7.8% ( N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% ( N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African‐centric research indexing database, is concerning.