The use of persistent identifiers in the retrieval of Brazilian scientific production

analysis of the coverage of Currículo Lattes in OpenAlex and ORCID

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/biblios.2026.1370

Keywords:

Persistent identifiers, Retrieval, Open information sources, Coverage, Lattes Platform

Abstract

Objective. This study sought to analyse the recovery of Brazilian scientific production in internationalised and open information environments, based on scientific production recorded in the Lattes Curricula of CNPq Research Productivity (PQ) scholarship holders. Using persistent identifiers DOI and ORCID, searches were carried out in the OpenAlex and ORCID sources. Method. Exploratory study of the scientific output of 16,203 CVs of PQ scholarship holders with registered ORCIDs, and approximately 1.1 million records of output with assigned DOIs, from the period 2015-2024. It compared the percentage of DOIs in the overlaps between the Lattes, OpenAlex and ORCID sources, as well as the degree of complementarity between the sources. It considered the following secondary variables: broad area, specific area of the PQ scholarship and geographical location (state and region) of the researcher's institutional affiliation. Results. The total production showed that around 79% of the DOIs retrieved from the three sources are represented on the Lattes Platform, while OpenAlex complements this with 18.8% and ORCID with 5.5%. On the other hand, the highest percentage of DOIs is found at the intersection between the Lattes Curriculum and OpenAlex (37.9%), with emphasis on Agricultural, Biological and Exact Sciences, and at the intersection between the three sources (29.3%). Human Sciences, Applied Social Sciences and Linguistics, Literature, and Arts stand out with the highest percentages coming from OpenAlex, while Health Sciences stand out for the percentage of exclusive DOIs in Lattes (9.5%) and ORCID (2.8%). Among the regions, the Southeast has the highest percentage of DOIs from ORCID (2.1%) and the Lattes and OpenAlex overlap (40.1%). On the other hand, the Midwest stands out with the highest percentages among the sources, being the region whose DOIs present in the curricula were most complemented by OpenAlex, which may mean that the identifier has not been registered in the curricula. When comparing specific areas and states, it was observed that, in both cases, there is greater heterogeneity in the percentage of DOIs: in OpenAlex exclusively; in the intersection between Lattes and OpenAlex; and in the intersection of the three sources. Thus, it was observed that the areas of Linguistics, Literature and Arts, as well as Agricultural Sciences, are the ones that present greater homogeneity among their subareas, while in Applied Social Sciences, greater heterogeneity is observed. Among the states, the greatest heterogeneity was observed in the North region, while the South region is the most homogeneous, followed by the Southeast region. Conclusions. The differences in source coverage suggest that the particularities of scientific communication, considering the editorial/informational ecosystem, diverge more between areas than between regions, which concerns the characteristics of publishing research results. The overlap in production between sources highlights the potential for univocity of PIDs, enabling research such as this to be conducted objectively, without variations in textual metadata interfering with the quality of the results.

Author Biographies

Wellington Barbosa Rodrigues, Federal University of ABC

Ph.D. and M.S. in Computer Science; B.S. in Information Systems. Research Associate at UFABC and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Information and Culture at ECA/USP.

Thamyres Vieira dos Santos, Universidade de São Paulo

Ph.D. student in Information Science at the University of São Paulo (USP). She holds a bachelor’s degree in Library Science and a master’s degree in Information Science, both from USP. She is currently a librarian at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein.

Rogério Mugnaini, University of São Paulo

Statistician, with a master’s and a doctorate in Information Science. Associate Professor in the Department of Information and Culture at the School of Communications and Arts, University of São Paulo, where he coordinates CiMetrias (Research Group on Science and Technology Metrics).

References

Akness, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2019). A criteria-based assessment of the coverage of Scopus e Web of Science. Journal of Data and Information Science, 4(1), 1-21. https://www.j-jdis.com/EN/10.2478/jdis-2019-0001

Alperin, J. P., Portenoy, J., Demes, K., Larivière, V., & Hustein, S. (2024). An analysis of the suitability of OpenAlex for bibliometric analyses. [Preprint] arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.17663

Asubiaro, T., Onaolapo, S., & Mills, D. (2024). Regional disparities in Web of Science and Scopus journal coverage. Scientometrics, 129, 1469-1491. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-04948-x

Boudry, C., & Durant-Barthez, M. (2020). Use of author identifier services (ORCID, ResearcherID) and academic social networks (Academia.edu, ResearchGate) by the researchers of the University of Caen Normandy (France): A case study. PLoS ONE, 15(9), Article e0238583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238583

Castro, R. (2011). Indexação de revistas científicas em bases de dados. In D. A. Población, G. P. Witter, L. M. S. V. C. Ramos, & V. M. B. O. Funaro (Orgs.), Revistas científicas: Dos processos tradicionais às perspectivas alternativas de comunicação (pp. 101-216). Ateliê Editorial.

Cebrián, G., Borrego, A., & Abadal, E. (2025). OpenAlex y Crossref como fuentes de datos bibliográficas alternativas a Web of Science y Scopus em ciencias de la salud. Revista Española de Documentación Cientifica, 48(1), 1649. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2025.1.1649

Céspedes, L., Kozlowski, D., Pradier, C., Sainte-Marie, M., Shokida, N. S., Benz, P., Poitras, C., Ninkvov, A. B., Ebrahimy, S., Ayeni, P., Filali, S., Li, B., & Larivière, V. (2025). Evaluating the linguistic coverage of OpenAlex: Anassessment of metadata accuracy and completeness. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 76(6), 884-895. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24979

Cousijn, H., Braukmann, R., Fenner, M., Ferguson, C., Van Horik, R., Lammey, R., Meadows, A., & Lambert, S. (2021). Connected research: The potential of the PID Graph. Patterns, 2(2), Article e100180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2020.100180

Culbert, J. K., Hobert, A., Jahn, N., Haupka, N., Schimidt, M., Donner, P., & Mayr, P. (2025). Reference coverage analysis of OpenAlex compared to Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics, 130, 2475-2492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05293-3

Danesh, F., & Mardani-Nejad, A. (2022). A historical overview of bibliometrics. In R. Ball (Ed.), Handbook bibliometrics (pp. 7-18). De Gruyter.

Glänzel, W., & Shoepflin, U. (1999). A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Information Processing and Management, 35(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00028-4

Houghton, F., & Foster, A. E. (2024). Resistance and collaboration within the panoptivarsity: Differing views of ORCID in Ireland. Journal of Documentation, 81(1), 195-210. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2024-0184

Jiao, C., Li, K., & Fang, Z. (2023). How are exclusively data journals indexed in major scholarly databases? An examination of four databases. Scientific Data, 10, Article e737. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02625-x

Krüger, A. K. (2020). Quantification 2.0? Bibliometric infrastructures in academic evaluation. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 58-67. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/2575

Madi, N. R., Rodrigues, I., & Faria, L. I. L. (2026). O Openalex como alternativa na avaliação da ciência brasileira: Comparação com Web of Science e Scopus. Ciência da Informação Express, 7, Article e173. https://doi.org/10.60144/v7i.2026.173

Maricato, J. M., Mazoni, A., Mugnaini, R., Packer, A. L., & Costas R. (2023). SciELO as an open scientometric research infrastructure: General discussion of coverage in OpenAlex, WoS, Scopus and Dimensions. In 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators [Conference]. Leiden, Stadsgehoorzaal. https://dapp.orvium.io/deposits/6442c231903ef57acd6dc640/view

Meadows, A. J. (1999). A comunicação científica. Briquet de Lemos.

Mena-Chalco, J. (2025). Quantos CVs Lattes foram esquecidos pelos seus autores? Linkedin. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quantos-cvs-lattes-foram-esquecidos-pelos-seus-jes%C3%BAs-p-mena-chalco-vts4f/?trackingId=9lp3YYr7UCiFysPOrpANuQ%3D%3D

Mena-Chalco, J., & Cesar R. M. C., Jr. (2009). scriptLattes: An open-source knowledge extraction system from the Lattes platform. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society, 15, 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03194511

Mezquita, B., Martín-Delgado, L., Wennberg-Capellades, L., & Borrego, A. A. (2025). A comparison of OpenAlex with Scopus and Web of Science for tracking scholarly nursing literature. Sage Open Nursing, 11, Article 23779608251361012. https://doi.org/10.1177/2377960825136101

Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213-228. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Mugnaini, R., Damaceno, R. J. P., Digiampietri, L. A., & Mena-Chalco, J. P. (2019). Panorama da produção científica do Brasil além da indexação: Uma análise exploratória da comunicação em periódicos. TransInformação, 31, Artigo e190033. https://www.scielo.br/j/tinf/a/gWy9yV67t3WHRmWdG8DP7qS/?lang=pt

Mugnaini, R., Fraumann, G., Tuesta, E. F., & Packer, A. L. (2020). Openness trends in Brazilian citation data: Factors related to the use of DOIs. Scientometrics, 126, 2523-2556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03663-7

Murillo, D., & Zapata, R. (2023). Evaluación de datos de instituciones panameñas a través de la versión alpha de la plataforma OpenAlex. Repositorio institucional de documentos digitales de acceso abierto de la Universidad Tecnológica de Panamá. https://ridda2.utp.ac.pa/handle/123456789/18055?locale-attribute=es

Murillo-Gonzalez, D., & López, S. (2023). Persistent identifiers in the traceability of scientific research using OpenAlex. In 2023 VI Congreso Internacional en Inteligencia Ambiental, Ingeniería de Software y Salud Electrónica y Móvil (AmITIC) [Congreso]. Cali, Colombia. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10366365

Ortega, J. L., & Delgado-Quirós, L. (2024). The indexation of retracted literature in seven principal scholarly databases: A coverage comparison of dimensions, OpenAlex, PubMed, Scilit, Scopus, The Lens and Web of Science. Scientometrics, 129(7), 3769-3785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05034-y

Packer, A. L, & Memeghini, R. (2006). Visibilidade da produção científica. In D. A. Población, G. P.Witter, & J. F. M. Silva (Orgs.), Comunicação e produção científica: Contexto, indicadores e avaliação (pp. p. 237-259). Angellara.

Pranckute, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications, 9(1), 12. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/9/1/12

Priem, J., Piwowar, H., & Orr, R. (2022). OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts. In 26th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators [Conference]. Granada, Spain. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.01833

Rodrigues, W. B., Santos, T. V., & Mugnaini, R. (2025). O uso de identificadores persistentes na recuperação da produção científica brasileira: Análise de cobertura do Currículo Lattes na OpenAlex e ORCID [Conjunto de dados]. Open Science Framework (OSF). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7NBQ6

Santos, T. V. (2021). Identificadores persistentes: Aplicabilidade na organização e acesso à informação científica. [Dissertação de Mestrado, Universidade de São Paulo]. Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP. https://doi.org/10.11606/D.27.2021.tde-02052022-115537

Schnieders, K., Mierz, S., Boccalini, S., Meyer Zu Westerhausen, W., Hauschke, C., Hagemann-Wilholt, S., & Schulze, S. (2022). ORCID coverage in research institutions: Readiness for partially automated research reporting. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 7, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.1010504

Sidone, O. J. G., Haddad, E. A., & Mena-Chalco, J. P. (2016). A ciência nas regiões brasileiras: Evolução da produção e das redes de colaboração científica. Transinformação, 28(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892016002800002

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

Turgel, I. D., & Chernova, O. A. (2024). Open science alternatives to Scopus and the Web of Science: A case study in regional resilience. Publications, 12(4), Article 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12040043

Velez-Estevez, A., Perez, I. J., García-Sánchez, P., Moral-Munoz, J. A., & Cobo, M. J. (2023). New trends in bibliometric APIs: A comparative analysis. Information Processing & Management, 60(4), Article 103385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103385

Downloads

Published

2026-07-01

How to Cite

Rodrigues, W. B., Santos, T. V. dos, & Mugnaini, R. (2026). The use of persistent identifiers in the retrieval of Brazilian scientific production: analysis of the coverage of Currículo Lattes in OpenAlex and ORCID. Biblios Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, (89), e004. https://doi.org/10.5195/biblios.2026.1370

Issue

No. 89 (2026): (Re)Configurations of Scientific Journals: Between Tradition and Transformation

Section

Original

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Wellington Barbosa Rodrigues, Thamyres Vieira dos Santos, Rogério Mugnaini

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.