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.
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