The data is usually incomplete. Some DOIs cannot be found at all in Microsoft Academic / Crossref / OpenCitations and for those that are found, often some metadata like authors, abstracts or reference-lists are missing (particularly in Crossref and OpenCitations). For the citation network and incoming suggestions, the completeness of the reference-lists is most important. Usually Microsoft Academic's data is more complete, which is currently turned {{ (API === 'Microsoft Academic') ? 'on' : 'off' }} (how to toggle).
The estimated completeness can be seen above the search bar in the "Input articles" tab and is calculated in the following way: For Microsoft Academic & OpenCitations it is the fraction of input articles that have reference-lists themselves (multiplied by the fraction of specified DOIs found, in case of an input list).
Crossref allows more subtle calculation, as it often also provides the total reference count, which is often larger than the reference-list of DOIs (older references often don't have DOIs and neither do some specific books, papers or conference abstracts). The estimated completeness is thus calculated as the product of three fractions:
- Source reference completeness: (Number of input articles found in Crossref) / (Total reference count of source or total number of DOIs in file)
- (Number of input articles that have reference-lists themselves) / (Number of input articles)
- Average input articles' reference completeness among those input articles that do have reference-lists: (Length of reference-list) / (Total reference count)