scholarly journals Use Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science for Comprehensive Citation Tracking

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorie Andrea Kloda
Keyword(s):  
Web Of Science ◽  
Condensed Matter ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Skewed Distribution ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Systematic Sampling ◽  
Condensed Matter Physics ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Citation Counts

Objective – To determine whether three competing citation tracking services result in differing citation counts for a known set of articles, and to assess the extent of any differences. Design – Citation analysis, observational study. Setting – Three citation tracking databases: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Subjects – Citations from eleven journals each from the disciplines of oncology and condensed matter physics for the years 1993 and 2003. Methods – The researchers selected eleven journals each from the list of journals from Journal Citation Reports 2004 for the categories “Oncology” and “Condensed Matter Physics” using a systematic sampling technique to ensure journals with varying impact factors were included. All references from these 22 journals were retrieved for the years 1993 and 2003 by searching three databases: Web of Science, INSPEC, and PubMed. Only research articles were included for the purpose of the study. From these, a stratified random sample was created to proportionally represent the content of each journal (oncology 1993: 234 references, 2003: 259 references; condensed matter physics 1993: 358 references, 2003: 364 references). In November of 2005, citations counts were obtained for all articles from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Due to the small sample size and skewed distribution of data, non-parametric tests were conducted to determine whether significant differences existed between sets. Main results – For 1993, mean citation counts were highest in Web of Science for both oncology (mean = 45.3, SD = 77.4) and condensed matter physics (mean = 22.5, SD = 32.5). For 2003, mean citation counts were higher in Scopus for oncology (mean = 8.9, SD = 12.0), and in Web of Science for condensed matter physics (mean = 3.0, SD = 4.0). There was not enough data for the set of citations from Scopus for condensed matter physics for 1993 and it was therefore excluded from analysis. A Friedman test to measure for differences between all remaining groups suggested a significant difference existed, and so pairwise post-hoc comparisons were performed. The Wilcoxon Signed Ranked tests demonstrated significant differences “in citation counts between all pairs (p < 0.001) except between Google Scholar and Scopus for CM physics 2003 (p = 0.119).” The study also looked at the number of unique references from each database, as well as the proportion of overlap for the 2003 citations. In the area of oncology, there was found to be 31% overlap between databases, with Google Scholar including the most unique references (13%), followed by Scopus (12%) and Web of Science (7%). For condensed matter physics, the overlap was lower at 21% and the largest number of unique references was found in Web of Science (21%), with Google Scholar next largest (17%) and Scopus the least (9%). Citing references from Google Scholar were found to originate from not only journals, but online archives, academic repositories, government and non-government white papers and reports, commercial organizations, as well as other sources. Conclusion – The study does not confirm the authors’ hypothesis that differing scholarly coverage would result in different citation counts from the three databases. While there were significant differences in mean citation rates between all pairs of databases except for Google Scholar and Scopus in condensed matter physics for 2003, no one database performed better overall. Different databases performed better for different subjects, as well as for different years, especially Scopus, which only includes references starting in 1996. The results of this study suggest that the best citation database will depend on the years being searched as well as the subject area. For a complete picture of citation behaviour, the authors suggest all three be used.

scholarly journals A citation analysis of Serbian Dental Journal using Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar

2010 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 201-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Jacimovic ◽  
Ruzica Petrovic ◽  
Slavoljub Zivkovic
Keyword(s):  
Web Of Science ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Thomson Scientific ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Comprehensive Picture ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Citation Databases

Introduction. For a long time, The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, US) citation databases, available online through the Web of Science (WoS), had an unique position among bibliographic databases. The emergence of new citation databases, such as Scopus and Google Scholar (GS), call in question the dominance of WoS and the accuracy of bibliometric and citation studies exclusively based on WoS data. The aim of this study was to determine whether there were significant differences in the received citation counts for Serbian Dental Journal (SDJ) found in WoS and Scopus databases, or whether GS results differed significantly from those obtained by WoS and Scopus, and whether GS could be an adequate qualitative alternative for commercial databases in the impact assessment of this journal. Material and Methods. The data regarding SDJ citation was collected in September 2010 by searching WoS, Scopus and GS databases. For further analysis, all relevant data of both, cited and citing articles, were imported into Microsoft Access? database. Results. One hundred and fifty-eight cited papers from SDJ and 249 received citations were found in the three analyzed databases. 74% of cited articles were found in GS, 46% in Scopus and 44% in WoS. The greatest number of citations (189) was derived from GS, while only 15% of the citations, were found in all three databases. There was a significant difference in the percentage of unique citations found in the databases. 58% originated from GS, while Scopus and WoS gave 6% and 4% unique citations, respectively. The highest percentage of databases overlap was found between WoS and Scopus (70%), while the overlap between Scopus and GS was 18% only. In case of WoS and GS the overlap was 17%. Most of the SDJ citations came from original scientific articles. Conclusion. WoS, Scopus and GS produce quantitatively and qualitatively different citation counts for SDJ articles. None of the examined databases can provide a comprehensive picture and it is necessary to take into account all three available sources.

An evaluation of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar citations in operations management

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 1039-1053 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Chapman ◽  
Alexander E. Ellinger
Keyword(s):  
Operations Management ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Content Type ◽  
English Language Journal ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Number Of Citations

Purpose Ongoing deliberation about how research productivity should be measured is exacerbated by extensive disparity between the number of citations for scholarly works reported by commercial academic search engines and Google Scholar (GS), the premier web crawling service for discovering research citations. Disparities identified in citation comparison studies have also led to disagreement about the value of the higher number of citations for social sciences and business scholarly articles consistently reported by GS. The purpose of this paper is to extend previous database citation comparison studies by manually analyzing a sample of unique GS citations to a leading operations management journal (i.e. citations found only in GS and not the commercial search engines) to reveal just where these additional citations are coming from. Design/methodology/approach In addition to comparing citation counts for the three databases, unique GS citation data for the sample of journal articles was manually captured and reviewed. The authors’ approach provides a much more in-depth examination of the provenance of GS citations than is found in previous studies. Findings The findings suggest that concerns about the value of unique GS citations may not be warranted since the document types for the unique GS citing documents identified in the analysis are dominated by familiar scholarly formats. Predominantly authentic and validated journal publications, dissertations, conference papers, and book and book chapters accounted for the large majority of the unique GS citations analyzed. Practical implications The study lends further credence to contentions that the use of citations reported in GS is appropriate for evaluating research impact in disciplines where other formats beyond the English-language journal article are valued. Originality/value Developing a more informed understanding of the provenance of unique GS citations in the authors’ field is important because many scholars not only aspire to publish in elite journals with high impact factors based on citation counts provided by commercial databases to demonstrate quality, but also report the larger number of citations for their publications that are reported by GS to demonstrate impact. The in-depth manual analysis suggests that GS provides a more nuanced and comprehensive representation of research impact and international scope than the commercial databases.

scholarly journals Ranking by Relevance and Citation Counts, a Comparative Study: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, WoS and Scopus

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rovira ◽  
Codina ◽  
Guerrero-Solé ◽  
Lopezosa
Keyword(s):  
Search Engine ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Growth Potential ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Unexpected Finding ◽  
Ranking Algorithms ◽  
Microsoft Academic ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
The Impact

Search engine optimization (SEO) constitutes the set of methods designed to increase the visibility of, and the number of visits to, a web page by means of its ranking on the search engine results pages. Recently, SEO has also been applied to academic databases and search engines, in a trend that is in constant growth. This new approach, known as academic SEO (ASEO), has generated a field of study with considerable future growth potential due to the impact of open science. The study reported here forms part of this new field of analysis. The ranking of results is a key aspect in any information system since it determines the way in which these results are presented to the user. The aim of this study is to analyze and compare the relevance ranking algorithms employed by various academic platforms to identify the importance of citations received in their algorithms. Specifically, we analyze two search engines and two bibliographic databases: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic, on the one hand, and Web of Science and Scopus, on the other. A reverse engineering methodology is employed based on the statistical analysis of Spearman’s correlation coefficients. The results indicate that the ranking algorithms used by Google Scholar and Microsoft are the two that are most heavily influenced by citations received. Indeed, citation counts are clearly the main SEO factor in these academic search engines. An unexpected finding is that, at certain points in time, Web of Science (WoS) used citations received as a key ranking factor, despite the fact that WoS support documents claim this factor does not intervene.

Physics research in Israel—A preliminary bibliometric analysis

1984 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 185-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Subbiah Arunachalam ◽  
M.K. Dhirendra Rao ◽  
Praveen K. Shrivastava
Keyword(s):  
Particle Physics ◽  
Nuclear Physics ◽  
Condensed Matter ◽  
The United States ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Condensed Matter Physics ◽  
Molecular Physics ◽  
Atomic And Molecular Physics ◽  
The Impact

The impact of physics research carried out in Israel on the international literature is assessed from data on publication and citation counts. We have considered in this analysis all papers published from Israel and covered under six of the ten major sections of INSPEC's Physics Abstracts, January-June 1977 (covering condensed matter physics, nuclear and particle physics, atomic and molecular physics and biophysics and physical chemistry) as well as citations to these papers as seen from five annual editions of Science Citation Index, 1977-1981. An analysis of these data permits us to identify: (i) areas of research in which Israel is strong, (ii) highly cited publications, (iii) the distribution of citations over the years, and (iv) how quickly the papers get cited. Israel accounts for less than 1% of the world's physics publications, but undeniably physics done in Israel is an integral part of the mainstream of world physics. Israeli physicists place almost all their work in foreign journals, most of them published from the United States, the Nether lands and the United Kingdom. Many of these journals have a good standing as seen from their high impact factors and immediacy indices. Nearly all papers in our sample have originated in eight institutions, indicating that Israel is free from the common Third World malady of spreading the butter of R&D budget too thinly. Overall, Israeli physics appears to be productive in condensed matter physics, nuclear physics and atomic and molecular physics. However, chemical physics tops the list if one considers both the number of papers published and the cognitive impact these papers have had. Two areas where Israel did not publish much and yet had a few publica tions of high impact are: (i) special theories, interaction models and particle systematics, and (ii) biophysics. Surprisingly for a nation interested in both the military and civilian applications of nuclear energy, Israel's publications in nuclear physics are not as well cited as her publications in many other subfields of physics.

scholarly journals Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a multidisciplinary comparison

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Martín-Martín ◽  
Enrique Orduna-Malea ◽  
Emilio Delgado López-Cózar
Keyword(s):  
Web Of Science ◽  
Large Fraction ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
Initial Hypothesis ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Broad Subject ◽  
Highly Cited

This study explores the extent to which bibliometric indicators based on counts of highly-cited documents could be affected by the choice of data source. The initial hypothesis is that databases that rely on journal selection criteria for their document coverage may not necessarily provide an accurate representation of highly-cited documents across all subject areas, while inclusive databases, which give each document the chance to stand on its own merits, might be better suited to identify highly-cited documents. To test this hypothesis, an analysis of 2,515 highly-cited documents published in 2006 that Google Scholar displays in its Classic Papers product is carried out at the level of broad subject categories, checking whether these documents are also covered in Web of Science and Scopus, and whether the citation counts offered by the different sources are similar. The results show that a large fraction of highly-cited documents in the Social Sciences and Humanities (8.6%-28.2%) are invisible to Web of Science and Scopus. In the Natural, Life, and Health Sciences the proportion of missing highly-cited documents in Web of Science and Scopus is much lower. Furthermore, in all areas, Spearman correlation coefficients of citation counts in Google Scholar, as compared to Web of Science and Scopus citation counts, are remarkably strong (.83-.99). The main conclusion is that the data about highly-cited documents available in the inclusive database Google Scholar does indeed reveal significant coverage deficiencies in Web of Science and Scopus in some areas of research. Therefore, using these selective databases to compute bibliometric indicators based on counts of highly-cited documents might produce biased assessments in poorly covered areas.

Citation personal display

2017 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 733-747 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xingchen Li ◽  
Qiang Wu ◽  
Nan Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
National Level ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Chinese Universities ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Citation Counts

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent to which researchers display citation information and examine whether there are researcher differences in citation personal display at the level of university, country, and academic rank. Design/methodology/approach Physicists from 11 well-known universities in USA, Britain, and China were chosen as the subjects of the study. It was manually identified if physicists had mentioned citation counts, citation-based indices, or a link to Google Scholar Citations on the personal websites. A χ2 test is constructed to test researcher differences in citation personal display. Findings Results showed that the overall proportion of citation personal display is not high (14.8 percent), with 129 of 870 physicists displaying citation. Moreover, physicists from different well-known universities indeed had a significant difference in citation personal display. Moreover, at the national level, it was noticed that physicists in well-known Chinese universities had the highest level of citation personal display, followed by Britain and the USA. Furthermore, this study also found that researchers who had the academic rank of professor had the highest citation personal display. In addition, the differences in h-index personal display by university, country, or academic rank were analyzed, and the results showed that they were not statistically significant. Originality/value This is the first study to investigate how widely researchers provide citation-based information on personal websites.

scholarly journals Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Martín-Martín ◽  
Enrique Orduna-Malea ◽  
Mike Thelwall ◽  
Emilio Delgado López-Cózar
Keyword(s):  
Core Collection ◽  
English Language ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Subject Categories ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
The Many ◽  
Conference Papers ◽  
Highly Cited

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. GS consistently found the largest percentage of citations across all areas (93%-96%), far ahead of Scopus (35%-77%) and WoS (27%-73%). GS found nearly all the WoS (95%) and Scopus (92%) citations. Most citations found only by GS were from non-journal sources (48%-65%), including theses, books, conference papers, and unpublished materials. Many were non-English (19%-38%), and they tended to be much less cited than citing sources that were also in Scopus or WoS. Despite the many unique GS citing sources, Spearman correlations between citation counts in GS and WoS or Scopus are high (0.78-0.99). They are lower in the Humanities, and lower between GS and WoS than between GS and Scopus. The results suggest that in all areas GS citation data is essentially a superset of WoS and Scopus, with substantial extra coverage.

scholarly journals Citation indices

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 2-4
Author(s):  
Feroze Kaliyadan ◽  
Karalikkattil T. Ashique
Keyword(s):  
Web Of Science ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
H Index ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Index Calculation

Impact of research is generally measured through citation counts. For author impact, the most common impact indices considered are the h-index, i10-index, and the g-index, of which the h-index is the most commonly used. There are various resources available for retrieving researcher h-indices. The most common databases used for the same are Scopus, Google Scholar, and “Web of Science.” Ethical issues related to the use of these resources for h-index calculation include – gaming/manipulation and fake citations. An issue which we have noticed cropping up of late, is researchers claiming erroneous h-indices.

Inelastic scattering at surfaces and interfaces

1986 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 392-393
Author(s):  
R. H. Ritchie ◽  
A. Howie
Keyword(s):  
Inelastic Scattering ◽  
Surface Properties ◽  
Correlation Energy ◽  
Condensed Matter ◽  
Charged Particles ◽  
Condensed Matter Physics ◽  
Optical Phonons ◽  
Exchange Correlation ◽  
Surfaces And Interfaces ◽  
Inelastic Interactions

An important part of condensed matter physics in recent years has involved detailed study of inelastic interactions between swift electrons and condensed matter surfaces. Here we will review some aspects of such interactions.Surface excitations have long been recognized as dominant in determining the exchange-correlation energy of charged particles outside the surface. Properties of surface and bulk polaritons, plasmons and optical phonons in plane-bounded and spherical systems will be discussed from the viewpoint of semiclassical and quantal dielectric theory. Plasmons at interfaces between dissimilar dielectrics and in superlattice configurations will also be considered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document