Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science

Bakkalbasi, Nisa, Bauer, Kathleen, Glover, Janis and Wang, Lei Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science., 2006 [Preprint]

[thumbnail of GS_Scopus_WoS_04182006_preprint.pdf]
Preview
 PDF
GS_Scopus_WoS_04182006_preprint.pdf
Download (205kB) | Preview

English abstract

Background: 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. In 2004, two competitors emerged – Scopus and Google Scholar. 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). Methods: 11 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 both years, and a stratified random sample of articles was chosen, resulting in four sets of articles. During the week of November 7-12, 2005 we extracted the citation counts for each research article 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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 2003 oncology articles, while Web of Science produced more citing material for 2003 and 1993 condensed matter physics, and 1993 oncology articles. Unique material was returned by all three tools. 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.

Item type: Preprint
Keywords: citation analysis; Google; citation databases; impact factors; Scopus; Web of Science
Subjects: H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HL. Databases and database Networking.
H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HP. e-resources.
L. Information technology and library technology > LS. Search engines.
Depositing user: Kathleen Bauer
Date deposited: 19 Apr 2006
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:03
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/7452

References

1. Cheek J, Garnham B, Quan J: What's in a number? Issues in providing evidence of impact and quality of research(ers). Qual Health Res 2006, 16:423-435.

2. Seglen PO: Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Br Med J 1997, 314:498-502.

3. Walter G, Bloch S, Hunt G, Fisher K: Counting on citations: A flawed way to measure quality. Med J Aust 2003, 178:280-281.

4. Almind TC, Ingwersen P: Informetric analyses on the World Wide Web: Methodological approaches to webometrics. J Doc 1997, 53:404-426.

5. Borgman CL, Furner J: Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol 2002, 36:3-72.

6. Butler D: Science searches shift up a gear as Google starts Scholar engine. Nature 2004, 432:423.

7. Garfield E: Citation indexes for science - new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 1955, 122:108-111.

8. Garfield E: Citation Indexing - Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities. New York: Wiley; 1979.

9. Garfield E: The agony and the ecstasy - the history and meaning of the journal impact factor. In International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: September 16, 2005; Chicago, IL.; 2005

10. Kurtz MJ, Eichhorn G, Accomazzi A, Grant C, Demleitner M, Henneken E, Murray SS: The effect of use and access on citations. Info Process Manage; Inf Process Manage 2005, 41:1395-1402.

11. Rahm E, Thor A: Citation analysis of database publications. SIGMOD Rec 2005, 34:48-53.

12. Weale AR, Bailey M, Lear PA: The level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: A comparison to the impact factor. BMC Med Res Methodol 2004, 4:14.

13. Zhao DZ: Challenges of scholarly publications on the web to the evaluation of science - A comparison of author visibility on the web and in print journals. Info Process Manage; Inf Process Manage 2005, 41:1403-1418.

14. Vincent A, Ross D: On evaluation of faculty research: Impact of citation analysis. J Appl Bus Res 2000, 16:1-14.

15. Bollen J, de Sompel HV, Smith JA, Luce R: Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data. Info Process Manage; Inf Process Manage 2005, 41:1419-1440.

16. Holden G, Rosenberg G, Barker K: Tracing thought through time and space: A selective review of bibliometrics in social work. Soc Work Health Care 2005, 41:1-34.

17. Deis LF, Goodman D: Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus. Charleston Advisor 2005, 6:March 2, 2005. [http://www.charlestonco.com/comp.cfm?id=43]

18. Felter LM: Google Scholar, Scirus, and the scholarly search revolution. Searcher 2005, 13:43-48.

19. Giustani D, Barsky E: A look at Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scirus: Comparisons and recommendations. JCHLA / JABSC 2005, 26:85-89.

20. Henderson J: Google Scholar: A source for clinicians? Can Med Assoc J 2005, 172:1549-1550.

21. Myhill M: Google Scholar. Charleston Advisor 2005, 6:April 14, 2006. [http://www.charlestonco.com/review.cfm?id=225]

22. Noruzi A: Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri 2005, 55:170-180.

23. Notess GR: Scholarly web searching: Google Scholar and Scirus. Online 2005, 29:39-41.

24. Roth DL: The emergence of competitors to the Science Citation Index and the Web of Science. Curr Sci 2005, 89:1531-1536.

25. Vine R: Google Scholar. J Med Libr Assoc 2006, 94:97-99.

26. Bauer K, Bakkalbasi N: An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Mag 2005, 11:April 14, 2006. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/september2005-bauer]

27. Kling R, McKim G: Scholarly communication and the continuum of electronic publishing. J Am Soc Inf Sci 1999, 50:890-906.

28. Kling R, McKim G: Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. J Am Soc Inf Sci 2000, 51:1306-1320.

29. Modlin IM, Adler G, Alexander K, Arnold RF, Brenner DA, Corazziari E, Floch MH, LaPorte RE, Peterson WL, Quigley EM, Shapiro MD, Spechler SJ, Spiller RC, Tytgat GN, Wiegers WF: Information assimilation and distribution challenges and goals for real and virtual journals. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005, 39:181-188.

30. Brown CM: Information seeking behavior of scientists in the electronic information age: Astronomers, chemists, mathematicians, and physicists. J Am Soc Inf Sci 1999, 50:929-943.

31. Brown C: The e-volution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2001, 52:187-200.


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