The aim of this analysis is to evaluate how the citation count varies between Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar in the current literature
Researchers turn to citation tracking to find the most influential articles for a particular topic and to see how often their own published papers are cited. For years researchers looking for this type of information had only one resource to consult: the Web of Science from Thomson Scientific. In 2004 two competitors emerged – Scopus from Elsevier and Google Scholar from Google. The research reported here uses citation analysis in an observational study examining these three databases; comparing citation counts for articles from two disciplines (oncology and condensed matter physics) and two years (1993 and 2003) to test the hypothesis that the different scholarly publication coverage provided by the three search tools will lead to different citation counts from each. Eleven journal titles with varying impact factors were selected from each discipline (oncology and condensed matter physics) using the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). All articles published in the selected titles were retrieved for the years 1993 and 2003, and a stratified random sample of articles was chosen, resulting in four sets of articles. During the week of November 7–12, 2005, the citation counts for each research article were extracted from the three sources. The actual citing references for a subset of the articles published in 2003 were also gathered from each of the three sources. For oncology 1993 Web of Science returned the highest average number of citations, 45.3. Scopus returned the highest average number of citations (8.9) for oncology 2003. Web of Science returned the highest number of citations for condensed matter physics 1993 and 2003 (22.5 and 3.9 respectively). The data showed a significant difference in the mean citation rates between all pairs of resources except between Google Scholar and Scopus for condensed matter physics 2003. For articles published in 2003 Google Scholar returned the largest amount of unique citing material for oncology and Web of Science returned the most for condensed matter physics. This study did not identify any one of these three resources as the answer to all citation tracking needs. Scopus showed strength in providing citing literature for current (2003) oncology articles, while Web of Science produced more citing material for 2003 and 1993 condensed matter physics, and 1993 oncology articles. All three tools returned some unique material. Our data indicate that the question of which tool provides the most complete set of citing literature may depend on the subject and publication year of a given article.
U ovom znanstvenom radu prikazani su najvažniji bibliometrijski pokazatelji rada znanstvenika i kvalitete časopisa koji su dostupni u bazama podataka Web of Science, Scopus i Google Scholar.
This paper uses macrolevel bibliometric indicators to compare results obtained from theWoS and Scopus. It shows that the correlations between the measures obtained with both databases for the number of papers and the number of citations received by countries, as well as for their ranks, are extremely high.
In this post, we provide empirical insights into the value of Crossref as a new source of citation data. We compare Crossref with WoS and Scopus, focusing on the citation data that is available in the different data sources. Our analysis will show that more than three-quarters of the references in WoS and more than two-thirds of the Scopus references can be found in Crossref, with about half of these references being openly available. On the other hand, it will also be shown that millions of references are missing in Crossref. These references occur in publications that have been deposited in Crossref without their references.
For more than 40 years, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now part of
Thomson-Reuters), produced the only available database making possible citation
analysis, the Web of Science (WoS). Now, another company, Reed-Elsevier, has created
its own bibliographic database, Scopus, available since 2002. For those who perform
bibliometric analysis and comparisons of countries or institutions, the existence of these
two major databases raises the important question of the comparability and stability of
rankings obtained from different data sources
Despite citation counts from Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus being
widely consulted by researchers and sometimes used in research evaluations, there is no recent
or systematic evidence about the differences between them. In response, this paper investigates
2,448,055 citations to 2,299 English-language highly-cited documents from 252 GS subject categories published in 2006, comparing GS, the WoS Core Collection, and Scopus
Web of Science, Scopus i Google Scholar najveće su, multidisciplinarno orijentirane citatne baze podataka koje, osim za pretraživanje literature, služe i kao analitički instrumentarij za vrednovanje znanstvenog odjeka autora i...
Tri su najpopularnije citatne baze podataka danas Web of Science (WoS), Scopus i Google Scholar (GS). GS je za razliku od WoS-a i Scopusa slobodno dostupan. Uspoređujući te tri citatne baze podataka treba reći da WoS i Scopus imaju...
Elsevier’s Scopus, the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature. Search and access research from the science, technology, medicine, social sciences and arts and humanities fields.
Elsevier’s Scopus, the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature. Search and access research from the science, technology, medicine, social sciences and arts and humanities fields.