  Dimensions was introduced as an alternative bibliometric database to the
well-established Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, however all three databases
have fundamental differences in coverage and content, resultant from their
owners' indexation philosophies. In light of these differences, we explore
here, using a citation network analysis and assessment of normalised citation
impact of "duplicate" publications, whether the three databases offer
structurally different perspectives of the bibliometric landscape or if they
are essentially homogenous substitutes. Our citation network analysis of core
and exclusive 2016-2018 publications revealed a large set of core publications
indexed in all three databases that are highly self-referential. In comparison,
each database selected a set of exclusive publications that appeared to hold
similarly low levels of relevance to the core set and to one another, with
slightly more internal communication between exclusive publications in Scopus
and Dimensions than WoS. Our comparison of normalised citations for 41,848
publications indexed in all three databases found that German sectors were
valuated as more impactful in Scopus and Dimensions compared to WoS,
particularly for sectors with an applied research focus. We conclude that the
databases do present structurally different perspectives, although Scopus and
Dimensions with their additional circle of applied research vary more from the
more base research-focused WoS than they do from one another.
