0
Citation Searching Comparing Web of Science, Google Scholar and Scopus Valerie Forrestal, Stevens Institute of Technology ...
Citation Databases Meho&Yang http://www.info.scopus.com/detail/what/   http://isiwebofknowledge.com/currentuser_wokhome/cu...
Source : Hull, D., Pettifer, S.R., & Kell, D.B. (2008). Defrosting the Digital Library: Bibliographic Tools for the Next G...
<ul><li>Content:  Scopus has almost 36 million record and WoS -including backfiles- 40 million. Scopus includes 16,000 jou...
Scopus and WoS: Citation Count <ul><li>Scopus vs. WoS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>14.0% (278) more citations by Scopus </li></ul...
GS vs. Scopus  WoS <ul><li>GS increases WoS  Scopus citations by 93% (2,552) </li></ul><ul><li>Scopus  WoS increases GS...
Meho & Yang’s Findings <ul><li>Scopus, WoS, and GS complement rather than replace each other </li></ul><ul><li>GS can be u...
Common Citation Searching Problems <ul><li>Misspellings. </li></ul><ul><li>Uncommon spellings/languages/special symbols </...
Database Strengths <ul><li>Scopus ’ strengths: </li></ul><ul><li>interface design/search features </li></ul><ul><li>recent...
Database Weaknesses <ul><li>Scopus ’ weaknesses: </li></ul><ul><li>humanities content (also math, physics and business/man...
Sources <ul><li>Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication env...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Citation Searching Presentation

2,611

Published on

Comparing Google Scholar, Web of Science and Scopus for use in citation searching.

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,611
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
81
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Citation Searching Presentation"

  1. 1. Citation Searching Comparing Web of Science, Google Scholar and Scopus Valerie Forrestal, Stevens Institute of Technology 11-12-08
  2. 2. Citation Databases Meho&Yang http://www.info.scopus.com/detail/what/ http://isiwebofknowledge.com/currentuser_wokhome/cu_productspecs/ Source Unknown 1996-present (with cited references) 1823-present (without cited references) A&HCI: 1975-present SCI: 1900-present SSCI: 1956- present Coverage years 500M records Unknown 30+ document types 36M records 16,000 titles Journals (1200 open access), Conference Proceedings, Trade Publications & book series 40M records 10,000 titles Journals (240 open access) & conference papers Breadth of coverage Google Scholar Scopus Web of Science
  3. 3. Source : Hull, D., Pettifer, S.R., & Kell, D.B. (2008). Defrosting the Digital Library: Bibliographic Tools for the Next Generation Web. PLoS Computational Biology 4(10): e1000204 doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204
  4. 4. <ul><li>Content: Scopus has almost 36 million record and WoS -including backfiles- 40 million. Scopus includes 16,000 journal titles against almost 10,000 in WoS. </li></ul><ul><li>Coverage : preliminary conclusions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scopus has after 1996 about 30% more, and before that about 10% less coverage than WoS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coverage in biology, environmental science, engineering and computer science very good in Scopus </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coverage in health sciences also very good, but doubt over most recent years </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coverage psych, anthropology, economics and chemistry acceptable, but before 1996 there are several gaps </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coverage in physics, astronomy, math and sociology less reliable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not-so-great coverage philosophy, theology, arts and literature </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Up-to-dateness: there is hardly any difference between WoS-Scopus considering the speed of updating records </li></ul><ul><li>Citation details: again the difference is rather small, there is a large overlap between WoS-Scopus, but the difference with Google Scholar is larger and it finds more unique publications. </li></ul><ul><li>Speed: Google Scholar is faster than WoS or Scopus. WoS has the disadvantage of being a little slower than Scopus. </li></ul><ul><li>Opinions : most &quot;power users&quot; like the Scopus interface and value the Refine and Citation Tracker, but it can not replace -for the time being- the Journal Citation Reports. </li></ul>Source : Bosman, J., I.v. Mourik, M. Rasch, E. Sieverts & H. Verhoeff (2006). Scopus reviewed and compared; the coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar. ( http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/DARLIN/2006-1220-200432/Scopus%20doorgelicht%20&%20vergeleken%20-%20translated.pdf ) – includes updated info. -vf.
  5. 5. Scopus and WoS: Citation Count <ul><li>Scopus vs. WoS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>14.0% (278) more citations by Scopus </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>More comprehensive coverage by Scopus (15,000 vs. 8,700 periodicals) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Scopus + WoS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scopus increases WoS citations by 35% (710) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WoS increases Scopus citations by 19.0% (432) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relatively low overlap (58%) and high uniqueness (42%) </li></ul></ul>Scopus (2,301) Web of Science (2,023) 58% (1,591) 26% (710) 16% (432) Scopus  WoS (2,733) Source : Meho & Yang
  6. 6. GS vs. Scopus  WoS <ul><li>GS increases WoS  Scopus citations by 93% (2,552) </li></ul><ul><li>Scopus  WoS increases GS citations by 26% (1,104) </li></ul><ul><li>GS identifies 53% (or 1,448) more citations than WoS  Scopus </li></ul><ul><li>GS has much better coverage of conference proceedings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(1,849 by GS vs. 496 by Scopus  WoS) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>GS has over twice as many unique citations as Scopus  WoS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(2,552 vs. 1,104, respectively) </li></ul></ul>Google Scholar (4,181) Scopus  WoS (2,733) 31% (1,629) 48% (2,552) 21% (1,104) GS  Scopus  WoS (5,285) Source : Meho & Yang
  7. 7. Meho & Yang’s Findings <ul><li>Scopus, WoS, and GS complement rather than replace each other </li></ul><ul><li>GS can be useful in showing evidence of broader international impact than could possibly be done through Scopus and WoS </li></ul><ul><li>GS can be very useful for citation searching purposes; however, it is not conducive for large-scale comparative citation analyses </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple sources of citations should be used to generate accurate citation counts and rankings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Citation databases complement one another </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Small overlap between sources may significantly influence relative ranking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>citation coverage varies by research area, document type, language </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Common Citation Searching Problems <ul><li>Misspellings. </li></ul><ul><li>Uncommon spellings/languages/special symbols </li></ul><ul><li>Author name variations </li></ul><ul><li>Incorrect citations (for example, year, volume number, inconsistencies of abbreviation). </li></ul><ul><li>Author order – may only be cited by the first author. </li></ul><ul><li>Self-citations. </li></ul><ul><li>Monographic literature is not well covered. </li></ul>
  9. 9. Database Strengths <ul><li>Scopus ’ strengths: </li></ul><ul><li>interface design/search features </li></ul><ul><li>recent content (post 1996) </li></ul><ul><li>the sciences (especially STM) </li></ul><ul><li>conference proceedings </li></ul><ul><li>openURL compliant </li></ul><ul><li>WoS ’ strengths: </li></ul><ul><li>humanities coverage </li></ul><ul><li>older publications </li></ul><ul><li>journal citation reports/impact factors/h-index </li></ul><ul><li>Google Scholar ’s strengths: </li></ul><ul><li>number of articles found </li></ul><ul><li>international/multilingual coverage </li></ul><ul><li>better coverage of citations in books and other non-journal sources </li></ul>
  10. 10. Database Weaknesses <ul><li>Scopus ’ weaknesses: </li></ul><ul><li>humanities content (also math, physics and business/management) </li></ul><ul><li>older articles (pre 1996) </li></ul><ul><li>WoS ’ weaknesses: </li></ul><ul><li>limited coverage (very few non-ISI-listed/non-English/open access sources) </li></ul><ul><li>expensive back-files </li></ul><ul><li>poor external linking capabilities (links are long and contain session ID) </li></ul><ul><li>Google Scholar ’s weaknesses: </li></ul><ul><li>very few advanced search/limit/sort features </li></ul><ul><li>inclusion of non-scholarly sources </li></ul><ul><li>significantly more time needed to weed/check sources </li></ul><ul><li>lack of transparency regarding source selection, number of documents, coverage, indexing, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>difficult to export citations </li></ul><ul><li>incorrect citations from improper scans </li></ul>
  11. 11. Sources <ul><li>Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine , 11(9). ( http://dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html ) </li></ul><ul><li>Bosman, J., Mourik, I.v. Rasch, Sieverts, M. E., & Verhoeff, H. (2006). Scopus reviewed and compared; the coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar. ( http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/DARLIN/2006-1220-200432/Scopus%20doorgelicht%20&%20vergeleken%20-%20translated.pdf ) </li></ul><ul><li>Harzing, A. W. K., & van der Wal, R. (2008) .Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis, Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics , 8. ( http://www.int-res.com/articles/esep2008/8/e008pp5.pdf ) </li></ul><ul><li>Hull, D., Pettifer, S.R., & Kell, D.B. (2008). Defrosting the Digital Library: Bibliographic Tools for the Next Generation Web. PLoS Computational Biology 4(10): e1000204 doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204 </li></ul><ul><li>Meho, L.I., & Yang, K. (2007, preprint). A new era in citation and bibliometric analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology . ( http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0612/0612132.pdf ) </li></ul>
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×