• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
One Entry to Research
 

One Entry to Research

on

  • 4,595 views

an critical evaluation of multidisciplinary citation databases

an critical evaluation of multidisciplinary citation databases

Statistics

Views

Total Views
4,595
Views on SlideShare
4,595
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
12
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    One Entry to Research One Entry to Research Presentation Transcript

    • One Entry to Research: critical assessment of Web of Science(WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar(GS) 10.50-11.10 Friday 15 Sept EAHIL 10th conference 2006 in Cluj-Napoca, Romania Speaker:Lars Iselid
    • BIBSAM-project from 1/1 2006 – 31/8 2006: One Entry to Research – critical assessment of Web of Science, Scopus och Google Scholar oneentry.wordpress.com
    • Primarily evaluations of multidisciplinary citation databases
      • Citation search
        • Author search
        • Address and department/institution search
      • Subject search and coverage
      • Overlap and coverage between Scopus, WoS etc (Not GS)
    • Questions for the libraries?
      • Shall we keep Web of Science or supplement with or change to Scopus?
      • Or do we need them at all when we have Google Scholar for free?
      • Is it sufficient to search for citations in Web of Science or should we also consider Scopus and Google Scholar?
      • Are these databases fullworthy as subject databases?
    • Answers from a librarian!
      • No, we should not use Google Scholar exclusively, which has lots of flaws for both citation and subject search.
      • If we want to find more cited references concerning research from 1996 and present we have to consider Scopus (and Google Scholar even pre-1996) beside of Web of Science.
      • Google Scholar has often unique citations in comparision with Scopus and Web of Science.
    • Rantapaa* 8 name variants
    • Rantapaa S* 2 additional name variants Of course much of the incorrect author spellings in Cited Ref Search could be blamed on incorrect citation information from article authors.
    • The Lancet-article? Rantapaa Dahlqvist or Rantapaa-Dahlqvist
    • The Lancet-article? Rantapaadahlqvist
    • The Lancet-article? Rantapaa-Dahlquist
    • The Lancet article! Original e-journal article
    • Lancet article in
    • Rantapaa* S
    • Lancet article in Dahlqvist, S.R.
    • Lancet article in
    • Bad implementation of data! Address is missing for Rantapää
    • … but in the original e-journal article, it’s there!
    • Search with limit umea could produce false amount of citations!! S Astrom umea
    • S Astrom Dept ophthalmol
    • Eriksson s* umea
    • S Eriksson Umea plant sci ctr
    • S Eriksson Geriatr Ctr
    • Staffan Eriksson at the same department published as S Eriksson
    • Lots of flaws when counting citations in Google Scholar. Many duplicates! Has no address field.
    • Why all these errors?
      • Lacking (raw)data from the beginning.
      • Unsuccessful indexing of (raw)data from the vendors Elsevier, Thomson och Google.
      • Algorithms can’t solve lacking (raw)data, perhaps tune up some errors.
      • It’s not a question about algo’s, it’s a question about structured well-indexed data.
    • Coverage evaluation of WoS and Scopus accomplished by Ylva Gavel, KIB, och Lars Iselid, Umeå UB.
      • We’ve been matching ISSN against Ulrich’s journal database to exclude non-active titles, obsolete/invalid ISSN, titles not covered. It’s remarkably many.
      • Study will be published in a scientific journal if accepted.
    • Coverage evaluation of WoS and Scopus - How many active titles? Scopus 13.226 journals WoS 8.786 journals
    • Coverage evaluation of WoS and Scopus - How many active titles overlap and how many are unique? WoS Scopus 7.210 indexed both in Scopus and WoS All together 14.802 journals with unique ISSN.
    • Coverage evaluation of WoS and Scopus - How many active titles overlap? WoS covers 55% of Scopus Scopus covers 82% of WoS 49 % exist in both
    • Active titles in each database
    • Average overlap of WoS 51,8% Scopus WoS Medline Embase Compendex PsycINFO Sociological Abstracts 55% 55% 46% 57% 36% 62%
    • Average overlap of Scopus 74,2% Scopus WoS Medline Embase Compendex PsycINFO Sociological Abstracts 82% 91% 45% 71% 67% 89%