2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2017.03.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Coverage and quality: A comparison of Web of Science and Scopus databases for reporting faculty nursing publication metrics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
51
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 66 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
51
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…First, a cross‐sectional design was used and the literature search was conducted at a single moment in time. The primary objective was to identify and analyze the 50 most cited publications in the Dental Traumatology journal based on the absolute citation count in the Scopus database only because it automatically excludes self‐citations and provides 20% more coverage than Web of Science . It is quite possible that other articles with higher citation counts among databases such as Web of Science and Google Scholar were not included in this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…First, a cross‐sectional design was used and the literature search was conducted at a single moment in time. The primary objective was to identify and analyze the 50 most cited publications in the Dental Traumatology journal based on the absolute citation count in the Scopus database only because it automatically excludes self‐citations and provides 20% more coverage than Web of Science . It is quite possible that other articles with higher citation counts among databases such as Web of Science and Google Scholar were not included in this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The primary objective was to identify and analyze the 50 most cited publications in the Dental Traumatology journal based on the absolute citation count in the Scopus database only because it automatically excludes self-citations and provides 20% more coverage than Web of Science. 79 It is quite possible that other articles with higher citation counts among databases such as Web of Science and Google Scholar were not included in this study. Second, the time factor would also have a definite impact as recently published articles are at a clear disadvantage because of insufficient time to accumulate a relatively greater number of citations irrespective of their content and quality.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our study has several limitations that are similar to other studies in citation classics [21]. These limitations include the presence of inherent problems in the citation process itself, for example, incomplete or inappropriate citations, biased citation [44,45,52,53]; changes in the list of citation classics with time making it a snapshot of the current state of research [54]; absence of articles with languages other than English which is mostly because authors are more likely to cite articles in their own language, and English articles are more likely to be cited overall [20]; and finally, missing of important studies because their findings became well known [55]. The latter point is relevant here because brucellosis was discovered in 1887 and it is possible that some important studies were not indexed in current database but their findings are now considered well known.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…This is because the databases differ in reporting the citation count for a particular article. The variation in citation count between databases results from differences in journal coverage and quality [44]. Scopus includes a more expanded spectrum of journals than WOS, and its citation analysis is faster and includes more articles than the citation analysis of WOS [45].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation