Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses

Falagas, Matthew E.; Pitsouni, Eleni; Malietzis, George; Pappas, Georgios

doi:10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf

Cited by 2,948 publications

(1,894 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,774

Contrasting

Unclassified

107

Order By: Relevance

“…In several case [14,17] in which, for example, the scientific productivity of an author is described by the number of publications, citations and H-index, it is important to understand their sources, because the same variables may take different values if they are obtained via Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar or other disciplinary databases. In literature, there are also some papers in which the journal coverages of the various fields of these databases are compared [2,16,35] . In the greater part of these cases, although exceptions are made for medical sciences and some hard sciences, none of these is thoroughly exhaustive or representative.…”

Section: Indexes and Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten challenges in modeling bibliographic data for bibliometric analysis

Ferrara

Salini

2012

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The complexity and variety of bibliographic data is growing, and efforts to define new methodologies and techniques for bibliometric analysis are intensifying. In this complex scenario, one of the most crucial issues is the quality of data and the capability of bibliometric analysis to cope with multiple data dimensions. Although the problem of enforcing a multidimensional approach to the analysis and management of bibliographic data is not new, a reference design pattern and a specific conceptual model for multidimensional analysis of bibliographic data are still missing. In this paper, we discuss ten of the most relevant challenges for bibliometric analysis when dealing with multidimensional data, and we propose a reference data model that, according to different goals, can help analysis designers and bibliographic experts in working with large collections of bibliographic data.

show abstract

Section: Indexes and Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten challenges in modeling bibliographic data for bibliometric analysis

Ferrara

Salini

2012

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Scopus engine searches through the ACM and IEEE databases, along with the databases of other publishers, such as Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, Sage, Emerald, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and many more. Scopus was chosen from among other academic search engines (e.g., Google Scholar, Web of Science) for the main search process due to its wider coverage of related journals, its flexible result-filtering capabilities and the consistent accuracy of its results [29,30].…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

The New Era of Virtual Reality Locomotion: A Systematic Literature Review of Techniques and a Proposed Typology

Boletsis

2017

MTI

213

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The latest technical and interaction advancements that took place in the Virtual Reality (VR) field have marked a new era, not only for VR, but also for VR locomotion. Although the latest advancements in VR locomotion have raised the interest of both researchers and users in analyzing and experiencing current VR locomotion techniques, the field of research on VR locomotion, in its new era, is still uncharted. In this work, VR locomotion is explored through a systematic literature review investigating empirical studies of VR locomotion techniques from 2014-2017. The review analyzes the VR locomotion techniques that have been studied, their interaction-related characteristics and the research topics that were addressed in these studies. Thirty-six articles were identified as relevant to the literature review, and the analysis of the articles resulted in 73 instances of 11 VR locomotion techniques, such as real-walking, walking-in-place, point and teleport, joystick-based locomotion, and more. Results showed that since the VR revival, the focus of VR locomotion research has been on VR technology and various technological aspects, overshadowing the investigation of user experience. From an interaction perspective, the majority of the utilized and studied VR locomotion techniques were found to be based on physical interaction, exploiting physical motion cues for navigation in VR environments. A significant contribution of the literature review lies in the proposed typology for VR locomotion, introducing four distinct VR locomotion types: motion-based, room scale-based, controller-based and teleportation-based locomotion.

show abstract

“…"The coverage of journals in cited reference enhanced databases can be surprisingly uneven," Jacsó ( [5], p. 278) states. So completeness can vary from author to author as well as from database to database [6][7][8][9]. Furthermore, not every researcher has the same database collection access (e.g., WoS with or without Book Citation Index).…”

Section: Relative Visibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Truebounded, Overbounded, or Underbounded? Scientists’ Personal Publication Lists versus Lists Generated through Bibliographic Information Services

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:A truebounded publication list of a scientific author consists of exactly all publications that meet two criteria: (1) they are formally published (e.g., journal article or proceeding paper); (2) they have scientific, scholarly, or academic content. A publication list is overbounded if it includes documents which do not meet the two criteria (such as novels); a publication list is underbounded if it is incomplete. Are authors' personal publication lists, found on their personal sites on the Internet or in institutional repositories, truebounded, overbounded, or underbounded? And are the respective publication lists generated through bibliographic information services truebounded, overbounded, or underbounded? As case studies, publications of nine International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) Committee members (published between 2007 and 2016) were collected to create preferably complete personal publication lists according to the two criteria. We connect the "relative visibility of an author" with the concepts of truebounded, overbounded, and underbounded publication lists. The authors' relative visibility values were determined for the information services Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar and compared to the relative visibility of the authors' personal publication lists. All results of the bibliographic information services are underbounded. Relative visibility is highest in Google Scholar, followed by Scopus and WoS.

show abstract

Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses

Cited by 2,948 publications

References 9 publications

Ten challenges in modeling bibliographic data for bibliometric analysis

Ten challenges in modeling bibliographic data for bibliometric analysis

The New Era of Virtual Reality Locomotion: A Systematic Literature Review of Techniques and a Proposed Typology

Truebounded, Overbounded, or Underbounded? Scientists’ Personal Publication Lists versus Lists Generated through Bibliographic Information Services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About