EVALUATING SCHOLARLY RESEARCH: A THEORETICAL APPROACH TO COMPARE WEB OF SCIENCE, SCOPUS AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Karavattuveetil, Susan Mathew K EVALUATING SCHOLARLY RESEARCH: A THEORETICAL APPROACH TO COMPARE WEB OF SCIENCE, SCOPUS AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR., 2015 . In National Seminar on Managing Innovation in New Generation Libraries , Rajagiri College of Social Sciences ,Kochi, 16-17 December 2014. (Unpublished) [Conference paper]

[thumbnail of Evaluating Scholarly research.doc] Text
Evaluating Scholarly research.doc - Submitted version
Download (1MB)

English abstract

Researchers use different resources to trace the research done in their field of interest and to find the impact of their work. The basic features of three common citation resources, Web of science of ISI, Scopus of Elsevier and Google Scholar are detailed in this study. An attempt is made to compare the important features of these three tools using data from their respective web sites and available literature. While Web of Science and Scopus are commercial databases Google Scholar is an open access database. Ease of access is an aspect which makes Google scholar a friendlier tool for library users, when compared to Web of Science and Scopus. Further studies based on different search options are to be conducted to evaluate the usability of these resources.

Item type: Conference paper
Keywords: Citation resources, Web of Science, Scopus, Google scholar, Citation Analysis, Citation tools
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information
B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
Depositing user: Dr Susan Mathew K
Date deposited: 11 Aug 2015 07:28
Last modified: 11 Aug 2015 07:28
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/25266

References

Adriaanse, L. S., & Rensleigh, C. (2013). Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: a content comprehensiveness comparison. Electronic Library, The,31(6), 727-744.

Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical digital libraries, 3(1), 7. http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/3/1/7

Bosman, Jet.al. (2006). Scopus reviewed and compared: The coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar.http://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/18247/Scopus%20doorgelicht%20%26%20vergeleken%20-%20translated.pdf?sequence=1

Deis, L. F. & Goodman, D. (2005). Web of Science (2004 Version) and Scopus. The CharlestonAdvisor6(3)Available at :http://charleston.publisher.ingentaconnect. com/ content/charleston/ chadv/2005/ 00000006/ 00000003/art00005

Falagas, M. E…et.al.(2008)Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338-342.

Gavel, Y., & Iselid, L. (2008). Web of Science and Scopus: a journal title overlap study. Online information review, 32(1), 8-21.

Gireesh Kumar, TK Comparative Analysis of Search Features of Scopus and Web of Science., 2013 . In : National Conference on Information Products and Services in the E- environment(NACINPROSE 2013), Hyderabad, India, 27-28 April. 2013. Available: http://eprints.rclis.org/19731/1/2013%20Gireeesh-Scopus.pdf

Hartman, K. A., & Mullen, L. B. (2008). Google Scholar and academic libraries: an update. New library world, 109(5/6), 211-222.

Horrocks., Gary (2006). Battle of the giants: a comparison of Web of Science,Scopus & GoogleScholarAvailable:http://www.haxel.com/icic/archive/2006/programme/ oct23#battle -of-the-giants-a-comparison-of-scopus-web-of-science-and-google-scholar

Jacso, P. (2005). As we may search-Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. CURRENT SCIENCE-BANGALORE-, 89(9), 1537.

Jacsó, P. (2008). The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Scopus.Online Information Review, 32(4), 524-535.

Jacsó, P. (2008). The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar. Online information review, 32(3), 437-452.

Jacsó, P. (2010). Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 34(1), 175-191.

Jacsó, P. (2011). Google Scholar duped and reduped–the aura of “robometrics”. Online Information Review, 35(1), 154-160.

Levine-Clark, M., & Gil, E. (2009). A comparative analysis of social sciences citation tools. Online Information Review, 33(5), 986-996.

Mayr, P., & Walter, A. K. (2007). An exploratory study of Google Scholar.Online information review, 31(6), 814-830.

Ming-der,Wu & Chen, S. C. (2014). Graduate students appreciate Google Scholar, but still find use for libraries. Electronic Library, The, 32(3), 7-7.

Pitol, S. P., & De Groote, S. L. (2014). Google Scholar versions: do more versions of an article mean greater impact?. Library Hi Tech, 32(4).


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS