Comparison of Microsoft Academic (Graph) with Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar (original) (raw)
Related papers
A New Era in Citation and Bibliometric Analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar
Computing Research Repository, 2006
Academic institutions, federal agencies, publishers, editors, authors, and librarians increasingly rely on citation analysis for making hiring, promotion, tenure, funding, and/or reviewer and journal evaluation and selection decisions. The Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) citation databases have been used for decades as a starting point and often as the only tools for locating citations and/or conducting citation analyses.
Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science
Proceedings of The Asist Annual Meeting, 2006
When faculty members are evaluated, they are judged in part by the impact and quality of their scholarly publications. While all academic institutions look to publication counts and venues as well as the subjective opinions of peers, many hiring, tenure, and promotion committees also rely on citation analysis to obtain a more objective assessment of an author's work. Consequently, faculty members try to identify as many citations to their published works as possible to provide a comprehensive assessment of their publication impact on the scholarly and professional communities. The Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) citation databases, which are widely used as a starting point if not the only source for locating citations, have several limitations that may leave gaps in the coverage of citations to an author's work. This paper presents a case study comparing citations found in Scopus and Google Scholar with those found in Web of Science (the portal used to search the three ISI citation databases) for items published by two Library and Information Science full-time faculty members. In addition, the paper presents a brief overview of a prototype system called CiteSearch, which analyzes combined data from multiple citation databases to produce citation-based quality evaluation measures.
Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis
Scientometrics, 2012
Google Scholar, the academic bibliographic database provided free-of-charge by the search engine giant Google, has been suggested as an alternative or complementary resource to the commercial citation databases like Web of Knowledge (ISI/Thomson) or Scopus (Elsevier). In order to check the usefulness of this database for bibliometric analysis, and especially research evaluation, a novel approach is introduced. Instead of names of authors or institutions, a webometric analysis of academic web domains is performed. The bibliographic records for 225 top level web domains (TLD), 19,240 university and 6,380 research centres institutional web domains have been collected from the Google Scholar database. About 63.8% of the records are hosted in generic domains like .com or .org, confirming that most of the Scholar data come from large commercial or non-profit sources. Considering only institutions with at least one record, one-third of the other items (10.6% from the global) are hosted by the 10,442 universities, while 3,901 research centres amount for an additional 7.9% from the total. The individual analysis show that universities from China, Brazil, Spain, Taiwan or Indonesia are far better ranked than expected. In some cases, large international or national databases, or repositories are responsible for the high numbers found. However, in many others, the local contents, including papers in low impact journals, popular scientific literature, and unpublished reports or teaching supporting materials are clearly overrepresented. Google Scholar lacks the quality control needed for its use as a bibliometric tool; the larger coverage it provides consists in some cases of items not comparable with those provided by other similar databases.
Bibliometrix: An Open Source Software for Bibliometrics and Scientometrics
Chapter in book, 2022
Bibliometrix software assists academics in several important steps such as data import, bibliographic analysis and co-citation of a publication dataset, pairing, collaboration and creation of matrices for co-word analysis and also effective in prediction of knowledge. This package may also be used to provide input data for network analysis, multiple correspondence analysis, and other data reduction procedures.
Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today's Academic World
Publications, 2021
Nowadays, the importance of bibliographic databases (DBs) has increased enormously, as they are the main providers of publication metadata and bibliometric indicators universally used both for research assessment practices and for performing daily tasks. Because the reliability of these tasks firstly depends on the data source, all users of the DBs should be able to choose the most suitable one. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus are the two main bibliographic DBs. The comprehensive evaluation of the DBs’ coverage is practically impossible without extensive bibliometric analyses or literature reviews, but most DBs users do not have bibliometric competence and/or are not willing to invest additional time for such evaluations. Apart from that, the convenience of the DB’s interface, performance, provided impact indicators and additional tools may also influence the users’ choice. The main goal of this work is to provide all of the potential users with an all-inclusive description of the two main bibliographic DBs by gathering the findings that are presented in the most recent literature and information provided by the owners of the DBs at one place. This overview should aid all stakeholders employing publication and citation data in selecting the most suitable DB.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015
We compare the network of aggregated journal-journal citation relations provided by the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2012 of the Science and Social Science Citation Indexes (SCI and SSCI) with similar data based on Scopus 2012. First, global maps were developed for the two sets separately; sets of documents can then be compared using overlays to both maps. Using fuzzystring matching and ISSN numbers, we were able to match 10,524 journal names between the two sets; that is, 96.3% of the 10,930 journals contained in JCR or 51.2% of the 20,553 journals covered by Scopus. Network analysis was then pursued on the set of journals shared between the two databases and the two sets of unique journals. Citations among the shared journals are more comprehensively covered in JCR than Scopus, so the network in JCR is denser and more connected than in Scopus. The ranking of shared journals in terms of indegree (that is, numbers of citing journals) or total citations is similar in both databases overall (Spearman's ρ > 0.97), but some individual journals rank very differently. Journals that are unique to Scopus seem to be less important-they are citing shared journals rather than being cited by them-but the humanities are covered better in Scopus than in JCR.
A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university
Scientometrics, 2009
For many years, the ISI Web of Knowledge from Thomson Reuters was the sole publication and citation database covering all areas of science thus becoming an invaluable tool in bibliometric analysis. In 2004, Elsevier introduced Scopus and this is rapidly becoming a good alternative. Several attempts have been made at comparing these two instruments from the point of view of journal coverage for research or for bibliometric assessment of research output. This paper attempts to answer the question that all researchers ask, i.e., what is to be gained by searching both databases? Or, if you are forced to opt for one of them, which should you prefer? To answer this question, a detailed paper by paper study is presented of the coverage achieved by ISI Web of Science and by Scopus of the output of a typical university. After considering the set of Portuguese universities, the detailed analysis is made for two of them for 2006, the two being chosen for their comprehensiveness typical of most European universities. The general conclusion is that about 2/3 of the documents referenced in any of the two databases may be found in both databases while a fringe of 1/3 are only referenced in one or the other. The citation impact of the documents in the core present in both databases is higher, but the impact of the fringe that are present only in one of the databases should not be disregarded as some high impact documents may be found among them.
Citation Analysis: Comparison of Web of Science®, Scopus™, SciFinder®, and Google Scholar
Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 2010
In recent years, numerous articles have compared the coverage, features, and citation analysis capabilities of Scopus TM and Google Scholar with Web of Science 1 , a Web-based version of Science Citation Index. This article goes a step further and compares the citation analysis potential of four databases: Web of Science, Scopus, SciFinder, and Google Scholar. Each database presents its own strengths and weaknesses, including methods of analysis, differences in coverage, and means of linking references. As an illustration, Web of Science provides coverage back to 1900. In contrast, Scopus only has completed citation information from 1996 onward, yet Scopus provides better coverage of clinical medicine and nursing than Web of Science. SciFinder has the strongest coverage of chemistry and the natural sciences, while Google Scholar has the capability to link citation information to individual references. Although Scopus and Web of Science provide comprehensive citation reports, all databases miss linking to some references included in other databases.