one entry to research
DESCRIPTION
an critical evaluation of multidisciplinary citation databasesTRANSCRIPT
One Entry to Research: critical assessment of Web of Science(WoS),
Scopus and Google Scholar(GS)
10.50-11.10 Friday 15 Sept
EAHIL 10th conference 2006 in Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Speaker:Lars Iselid
BIBSAM-project from 1/1 2006 – 31/8 2006:One Entry to Research – critical assessment of Web of Science, Scopus och Google Scholar
oneentry.wordpress.com
Primarily evaluations of multidisciplinary citation databases
Citation search Author search Address and department/institution search
Subject search and coverage
Overlap and coverage between Scopus, WoS etc (Not GS)
Questions for the libraries?
Shall we keep Web of Science or supplement with or change to Scopus?
Or do we need them at all when we have Google Scholar for free?
Is it sufficient to search for citations in Web of Science or should we also consider Scopus and Google Scholar?
Are these databases fullworthy as subject databases?
Answers from a librarian!
No, we should not use Google Scholar exclusively, which has lots of flaws for both citation and subject search.
If we want to find more cited references concerning research from 1996 and present we have to consider Scopus (and Google Scholar even pre-1996) beside of Web of Science.
Google Scholar has often unique citations in comparision with Scopus and Web of Science.
Rantapaa*
8 name variants
Rantapaa S*
2 additional name variants
Of course much of the incorrect author spellings in Cited Ref Search could be blamed on incorrect citation information from article authors.
The Lancet-article?Rantapaa Dahlqvist or Rantapaa-Dahlqvist
The Lancet-article?Rantapaadahlqvist
The Lancet-article? Rantapaa-Dahlquist
The Lancet article!
Original e-journal article
Lancet article in
Rantapaa* S
Lancet article in
Dahlqvist, S.R.
Lancet article in
Bad implementation of data!Address is missing for Rantapää
…but in the original e-journal article, it’s there!
Search with limit umea could produce false amount of citations!!S Astrom umea
S Astrom Dept ophthalmol
Eriksson s* umea
S Eriksson Umea plant sci ctr
S Eriksson Geriatr Ctr
Staffan Eriksson at the same department published as S Eriksson
Lots of flaws when counting citations in Google Scholar. Many duplicates! Has no address field.
Why all these errors?
Lacking (raw)data from the beginning.
Unsuccessful indexing of (raw)data from the vendors Elsevier, Thomson och Google.
Algorithms can’t solve lacking (raw)data, perhaps tune up some errors.
It’s not a question about algo’s, it’s a question about structured well-indexed data.
Coverage evaluation of WoS and Scopusaccomplished by Ylva Gavel, KIB, och Lars Iselid, Umeå UB.
We’ve been matching ISSN against Ulrich’s journal database to exclude non-active titles, obsolete/invalid ISSN, titles not covered. It’s remarkably many.
Study will be published in a scientific journal if accepted.
Coverage evaluation of WoS and Scopus - How many active titles?
Scopus 13.226 journals
WoS8.786 journals
Coverage evaluation of WoS and Scopus - How many active titles overlap and how many are unique?
WoSScopus
7.210 indexed both inScopus andWoS
All together14.802 journals with unique ISSN.
Coverage evaluation of WoS and Scopus - How many active titles overlap?
WoS covers55% of Scopus
Scopuscovers 82%of WoS
49 %existin both
Active titles in each database
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Active titles
Soca 1.870
PsycINFO 1.972
Compendex 3.890
Medline 4.843
Embase 4.763
Web of Science 8.786
Scopus 13.226
Average overlap of WoS 51,8%
Scopus
WoS
Medline
Embase
Compendex
PsycINFO
SociologicalAbstracts
55%
55%
46% 57%
36%
62%
Average overlap of Scopus 74,2%
Scopus
WoS
Medline
Embase
Compendex
PsycINFO
SociologicalAbstracts
82%
91%
45%
71%
67%
89%