One Entry to Research:   critical assessment of Web of Science(WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar(GS) 10.50-11.10 Friday 15 S...
BIBSAM-project from 1/1 2006 – 31/8 2006: One Entry to Research – critical assessment of Web of Science, Scopus och Google...
Primarily evaluations of multidisciplinary citation databases <ul><li>Citation search </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Author search ...
Questions for the libraries? <ul><li>Shall we keep Web of Science or supplement with or change to Scopus?  </li></ul><ul><...
Answers from a librarian! <ul><li>No, we should not use Google Scholar exclusively, which has lots of flaws for both citat...
Rantapaa* 8 name variants
Rantapaa S* 2 additional name variants Of course much of the incorrect author spellings in Cited Ref Search could be blame...
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? <ul><li>Lacking (raw)data from the beginning. </li></ul><ul><li>Unsuccessful indexing of (raw)data f...
Coverage evaluation of WoS and Scopus accomplished by Ylva Gavel, KIB, och Lars Iselid, Umeå UB. <ul><li>We’ve been matchi...
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  inde...
Coverage evaluation of WoS and Scopus  -  How many active titles overlap? WoS covers 55% of Scopus Scopus covers 82% of Wo...
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%
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

One Entry to Research

2,685 views

Published on

an critical evaluation of multidisciplinary citation databases

Published in: Economy & Finance
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,685
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
49
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

One Entry to Research

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. Primarily 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. 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. 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. 6. Rantapaa* 8 name variants
  7. 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. 8. The Lancet-article? Rantapaa Dahlqvist or Rantapaa-Dahlqvist
  9. 9. The Lancet-article? Rantapaadahlqvist
  10. 10. The Lancet-article? Rantapaa-Dahlquist
  11. 11. The Lancet article! Original e-journal article
  12. 12. Lancet article in
  13. 13. Rantapaa* S
  14. 14. Lancet article in Dahlqvist, S.R.
  15. 15. Lancet article in
  16. 16. Bad implementation of data! Address is missing for Rantapää
  17. 17. … but in the original e-journal article, it’s there!
  18. 18. Search with limit umea could produce false amount of citations!! S Astrom umea
  19. 19. S Astrom Dept ophthalmol
  20. 20. Eriksson s* umea
  21. 21. S Eriksson Umea plant sci ctr
  22. 22. S Eriksson Geriatr Ctr
  23. 23. Staffan Eriksson at the same department published as S Eriksson
  24. 24. Lots of flaws when counting citations in Google Scholar. Many duplicates! Has no address field.
  25. 25. 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>
  26. 26. 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>
  27. 27. Coverage evaluation of WoS and Scopus - How many active titles? Scopus 13.226 journals WoS 8.786 journals
  28. 28. 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.
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. Active titles in each database
  31. 31. Average overlap of WoS 51,8% Scopus WoS Medline Embase Compendex PsycINFO Sociological Abstracts 55% 55% 46% 57% 36% 62%
  32. 32. Average overlap of Scopus 74,2% Scopus WoS Medline Embase Compendex PsycINFO Sociological Abstracts 82% 91% 45% 71% 67% 89%

×