Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

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

4,413

Published on

Published in: Economy & Finance, Technology
2 Comments
9 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • 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.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Outstanding display. Really clear together with helpful

    Janie
    http://financejedi.com
    http://healthjedi.com
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
4,413
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
2
Likes
9
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 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
  • 2. BIBSAM-project from 1/1 2006 – 31/8 2006: One Entry to Research – critical assessment of Web of Science, Scopus och Google Scholar
  • 3. Evaluations of multidisciplinary citation databases <ul><li>Citation search </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Author search </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Address and department/institution search </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Subject search and coverage </li></ul><ul><li>Overlap and coverage between Scopus, WoS etc (Not GS) </li></ul>
  • 4. Questions for the libraries? <ul><li>Shall we keep Web of Science or supplement with or change to Scopus? </li></ul><ul><li>Or do we need them at all when we have Google Scholar for free? </li></ul><ul><li>Is it sufficient to search for citations in Web of Science or should we also consider Scopus and Google Scholar? </li></ul><ul><li>Are these databases fullworthy as subject databases? </li></ul>
  • 5. Answers from a librarian! <ul><li>No, we should not use Google Scholar exclusively, which has lots of flaws for both citation and subject search. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Google Scholar has often unique citations in comparision with Scopus and Web of Science. </li></ul>
  • 6. Rantapaa* 8 name variants
  • 7. 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.
  • 8. The Lancet-article? Rantapaa Dahlqvist or Rantapaa-Dahlqvist
  • 9. The Lancet-article? Rantapaadahlqvist
  • 10. The Lancet-article? Rantapaa-Dahlquist
  • 11. The Lancet article! Original e-journal article
  • 12. Lancet article in
  • 13. Rantapaa* S
  • 14. Lancet article in Dahlqvist, S.R.
  • 15. Lancet article in
  • 16. Due to all incorrect information in author and address fields I recommend to compare with a publication list from the researcher. Publication lists
  • 17. Author search for finding times cited <ul><li>AG Fisher’s affiliation is Umeå but has been in Colorado before. </li></ul><ul><li>5 AG Fisher with three first name initials </li></ul>
  • 18. Has AG Fisher published articles as A Fisher? 8 hits but no one by Anne G Fisher
  • 19. Two articles with spelling A Fisher with search limits Am J Occup Ther 1987 (where address is not Umea or Colorado)
  • 20. Two AG Fisher has published in same journal. But none with address Colorado or Umea. Right Anne Fisher! False Anne Fisher!
  • 21. <ul><li>Is it of great value to compare with publication lists? </li></ul><ul><li>Yes, too often. </li></ul><ul><li>Do researchers really manage to keep track of their articles? </li></ul><ul><li>No, many of them don’t. But we must tell them to do that if they want to hurry up their career. </li></ul>
  • 22. One of the articles by PO Sandman does not exist in his publication list. It’s cited 2 times in WoS.
  • 23. These articles from WoS are not existing in the publication list of S Eriksson. 14 times cited.
  • 24. Bad implementation of data! Address is missing for Rantapää
  • 25. … but in the original e-journal article, it’s there!
  • 26. Search with limit umea could produce false amount of citations!! S Astrom umea
  • 27. S Astrom Dept ophthalmol
  • 28. Eriksson s* umea
  • 29. S Eriksson Umea plant sci ctr
  • 30. S Eriksson Geriatr Ctr
  • 31. Staffan Eriksson at the same department published as S Eriksson
  • 32. Variants of a department <ul><li>Dept Community Med & Rehabil </li></ul><ul><li>Inst Community Med & Rehabil, Div Geriatr </li></ul><ul><li>Dept Geriatr Med </li></ul><ul><li>Geriatr ctr </li></ul>
  • 33. Lost citations when using search limit author and address.
  • 34. Author-address search solutions from Thomson ISI WoS <ul><li>Rantapaa$dahlq?ist s* </li></ul><ul><ul><li>$ equals one or zero characters </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>* any number of characters </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>? is one single characters </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Author=astrom s Address=umea SAME dept nursing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Retrieves at same line: umea univ dept nursing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Doesn’t retrieve: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lund univ, Dept nursing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Umea univ, Dept Ophthalmology </li></ul></ul>
  • 35. Lots of flaws when counting citations in Google Scholar. Many duplicates! Has no address field.
  • 36. Why all these errors? <ul><li>Lacking (raw)data from the beginning. </li></ul><ul><li>Unsuccessful indexing of (raw)data from the vendors Elsevier, Thomson och Google. </li></ul><ul><li>Algorithms can’t solve lacking (raw)data, perhaps tune up some errors. </li></ul><ul><li>It’s not a question about algo’s, it’s a question about structured well-indexed data. </li></ul>
  • 37. Multidisciplinary subject search
  • 38. 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.
  • 39. Hormone replacement therapy
  • 40. Hormone replacement therapy in cited references of the article.
  • 41. 29% 37,7% 17% 16% 0,3%
  • 42. Keywords/Thesaurus <ul><li>Subject words (and reference information) are </li></ul><ul><li>collected from Elsevier databases och Medline: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Geobase subject index </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emtree - bara major headings are displyed! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MeSH – bara major headings are displayed! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>FLX terms, WTA terms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Regional Index </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Species Index </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ei thesaurus </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Author keywords (uncontrolled) </li></ul></ul>
  • 43. Check Major MeSH Headings in a PubMed reference
  • 44. Breast Neoplasms/surgery* is missing!
  • 45. Emtree terms in Embase
  • 46. Same reference in Scopus misses Emtree terms
  • 47. Same thing with Compendex
  • 48. … and same reference in Scopus
  • 49. Lacking subject search <ul><li>No index search to get suggestions of terms. </li></ul><ul><li>Thesauri are inconsistently integrated, sometimes no or just a selected part of (major) MeSH-terms, Emtree and Compendex terms. </li></ul><ul><li>Uncontrolled terms mixed with controlled terms. No possibility to limit to controlled terms exclusive. </li></ul><ul><li>No option for chosing thesauri. </li></ul><ul><li>No mapping of terms, similar to PubMed and Embase. </li></ul><ul><li>No possibility to explode a search for subterms. </li></ul><ul><li>No integration of MeSH subheadings. </li></ul>
  • 50. Subject search in Google Scholar advanced search
  • 51. Subject coverage in <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>From 47 databases 50 article titles were randomly collected from each database and compared with Google Scholar. </li></ul>
  • 52. Subject coverage Källa: Neuhaus, Chris et al (2006)
  • 53. Database coverage <ul><li>Each databse of 47 (with 2350 randomly selected articles) had a median and average coverage of 60%. </li></ul>
  • 54. Coverage evaluation of WoS and Scopus accomplished by Ylva Gavel, KIB, och Lars Iselid, Umeå UB. <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Study will be published in a scientific journal if accepted. </li></ul>
  • 55. Coverage evaluation of WoS and Scopus - How many active titles? Scopus 13.226 journals WoS 8.786 journals
  • 56. 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.
  • 57. 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
  • 58. Active titles in each database
  • 59. Average overlap of WoS 51,8% Scopus WoS Medline Embase Compendex PsycINFO Sociological Abstracts 55% 55% 46% 57% 36% 62%
  • 60. Average overlap of Scopus 74,2% Scopus WoS Medline Embase Compendex PsycINFO Sociological Abstracts 82% 91% 45% 71% 67% 89%
  • 61. Coverage evaluation Scopus and Medline - How many active titles? Scopus 13.226 journals Medline 4.843 journals
  • 62. 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
  • 63. Coverage evaluation Scopus and Medline - How many journals overlap? Medline covers 33% of Scopus Scopus covers 91% of Medline 32 % exist in both <ul><li>About one third of all unique journals in Scopus and Medline are indexed in both databases. </li></ul>
  • 64. Coverage evaluation WoS vs. Medline - How many active titles? WoS 8.786 journals Medline 4.843 journals
  • 65. 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.
  • 66. Coverage evaluation WoS vs. Medline - How many journals overlap? Medline covers 34% of WoS WoS covers 62% of Medline 28 % exist in both <ul><li>Nearly one third of all unique journals in WoS and Medline are indexed in both databases. </li></ul>
  • 67. New options for author search: Scopus Author Identifier, WoS Author Finder Some improvements, some confusions!
  • 68. Displays not just the address of the author retrieved, but also all co-authors addresses. Just displays institution, not department. Author Finder
  • 69. Refine your results
  • 70. What to do about the mess? <ul><li>Discuss the value of a citation and discuss alternative methods for measuring research. </li></ul><ul><li>Discuss and measure the errors in the databases concerning citation search. </li></ul><ul><li>By continuously evaluating citation databases we can put som pressure on the vendors to work more with improvements of the flaws. </li></ul>

×