• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
One Entry to Research: critical assessment of Web of Sceince, Scopus and Google Scholar.
 

One Entry to Research: critical assessment of Web of Sceince, Scopus and Google Scholar.

on

  • 7,083 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
7,083
Views on SlideShare
7,054
Embed Views
29

Actions

Likes
9
Downloads
0
Comments
2

5 Embeds 29

http://moodle.op.ac.nz 17
http://www.slideshare.net 8
http://blackboard.tekotago.ac.nz 2
http://blackboard7.tekotago.ac.nz 1
http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

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

12 of 2 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Excellent. You've shown your credibility on presentation with this slideshow. This one deserves thumbs up. I'm John, owner of www.freeringtones.ws/ . Perhaps I'll get to see more quality slides from you.

    Best wishes.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Outstanding display. Really clear together with helpful

    Janie
    http://financejedi.com
    http://healthjedi.com
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    One Entry to Research: critical assessment of Web of Sceince, Scopus and Google Scholar. One Entry to Research: critical assessment of Web of Sceince, Scopus and Google Scholar. Presentation Transcript

    • One Entry to Research: critical assessment of Web of Science(WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar(GS) 10.20-11.00 Thursday 31 August BIBSAM workshop, National Library, Sthlm 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
    • 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
    • Due to all incorrect information in author and address fields I recommend to compare with a publication list from the researcher. Publication lists
    • Author search for finding times cited
      • AG Fisher’s affiliation is Umeå but has been in Colorado before.
      • 5 AG Fisher with three first name initials
    • Has AG Fisher published articles as A Fisher? 8 hits but no one by Anne G Fisher
    • Two articles with spelling A Fisher with search limits Am J Occup Ther 1987 (where address is not Umea or Colorado)
    • Two AG Fisher has published in same journal. But none with address Colorado or Umea. Right Anne Fisher! False Anne Fisher!
      • Is it of great value to compare with publication lists?
      • Yes, too often.
      • Do researchers really manage to keep track of their articles?
      • No, many of them don’t. But we must tell them to do that if they want to hurry up their career.
    • One of the articles by PO Sandman does not exist in his publication list. It’s cited 2 times in WoS.
    • These articles from WoS are not existing in the publication list of S Eriksson. 14 times cited.
    • 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
    • Variants of a department
      • Dept Community Med & Rehabil
      • Inst Community Med & Rehabil, Div Geriatr
      • Dept Geriatr Med
      • Geriatr ctr
    • Lost citations when using search limit author and address.
    • Author-address search solutions from Thomson ISI WoS
      • Rantapaa$dahlq?ist s*
        • $ equals one or zero characters
        • * any number of characters
        • ? is one single characters
      • Author=astrom s Address=umea SAME dept nursing
        • Retrieves at same line: umea univ dept nursing
      • Doesn’t retrieve:
        • Lund univ, Dept nursing
        • Umea univ, Dept Ophthalmology
    • 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.
    • Multidisciplinary subject search
    • KeyWord Plus in ” Key Words Plus supplies additional search terms extracted from the titles of articles cited by authors in their bibliographies and footnotes”. ” ,,,provide a brief condensation of the major and minor themes Discussed”. Källa: www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v13p295y1990.pdf Records without references won't have KW+ - but more specifically, articles whose references are not linked to source items. In addition, it may be that those with very few linked references won't generate good candidates for KW+ either.
    • Hormone replacement therapy
    • Hormone replacement therapy in cited references of the article.
    • 29% 37,7% 17% 16% 0,3%
    • Keywords/Thesaurus
      • Subject words (and reference information) are
      • collected from Elsevier databases och Medline:
        • Geobase subject index
        • Emtree - bara major headings are displyed!
        • MeSH – bara major headings are displayed!
        • FLX terms, WTA terms
        • Regional Index
        • Species Index
        • Ei thesaurus
        • Author keywords (uncontrolled)
    • Check Major MeSH Headings in a PubMed reference
    • Breast Neoplasms/surgery* is missing!
    • Emtree terms in Embase
    • Same reference in Scopus misses Emtree terms
    • Same thing with Compendex
    • … and same reference in Scopus
    • Lacking subject search
      • No index search to get suggestions of terms.
      • Thesauri are inconsistently integrated, sometimes no or just a selected part of (major) MeSH-terms, Emtree and Compendex terms.
      • Uncontrolled terms mixed with controlled terms. No possibility to limit to controlled terms exclusive.
      • No option for chosing thesauri.
      • No mapping of terms, similar to PubMed and Embase.
      • No possibility to explode a search for subterms.
      • No integration of MeSH subheadings.
    • Subject search in Google Scholar advanced search
    • Subject coverage in
      • Neuhaus, Chris, (2006) Ellen Neuhaus, Alan Asher and Clint Wrede The Depth and Breadth of Google Scholar: An Empirical Study Portal: Libraries and the Academy Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 127-141.
      • From 47 databases 50 article titles were randomly collected from each database and compared with Google Scholar.
    • Subject coverage Källa: Neuhaus, Chris et al (2006)
    • Database coverage
      • Each databse of 47 (with 2350 randomly selected articles) had a median and average coverage of 60%.
    • 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%
    • Coverage evaluation Scopus and Medline - How many active titles? Scopus 13.226 journals Medline 4.843 journals
    • Coverage evaluation Scopus and Medline - How many active titles is overlapping and how many unique? Medline Scopus 4.425 are indexed by both Scopus and Medline All together 13.644 journals with unique ISSN
    • Coverage evaluation Scopus and Medline - How many journals overlap? Medline covers 33% of Scopus Scopus covers 91% of Medline 32 % exist in both
      • About one third of all unique journals in Scopus and Medline are indexed in both databases.
    • Coverage evaluation WoS vs. Medline - How many active titles? WoS 8.786 journals Medline 4.843 journals
    • Coverage evaluation WoS vs. Medline - How many active titles is overlapping and how many unique? Medline WoS 3.001 indexed By both WoS and Medline All together 10.682 journals with unique ISSN.
    • Coverage evaluation WoS vs. Medline - How many journals overlap? Medline covers 34% of WoS WoS covers 62% of Medline 28 % exist in both
      • Nearly one third of all unique journals in WoS and Medline are indexed in both databases.
    • New options for author search: Scopus Author Identifier, WoS Author Finder Some improvements, some confusions!
    • Displays not just the address of the author retrieved, but also all co-authors addresses. Just displays institution, not department. Author Finder
    • Refine your results
    • What to do about the mess?
      • Discuss the value of a citation and discuss alternative methods for measuring research.
      • Discuss and measure the errors in the databases concerning citation search.
      • By continuously evaluating citation databases we can put som pressure on the vendors to work more with improvements of the flaws.