Cargando…

The difference in referencing in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar

AIMS: How often a medical article is cited is important for many people because it is used to calculate different variables such as the h‐index and the journal impact factor. The aim of this analysis was to assess how the citation count varies between Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Anker, Markus S., Hadzibegovic, Sara, Lena, Alessia, Haverkamp, Wilhelm
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6989289/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31886636
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12583
_version_ 1783492376535236608
author Anker, Markus S.
Hadzibegovic, Sara
Lena, Alessia
Haverkamp, Wilhelm
author_facet Anker, Markus S.
Hadzibegovic, Sara
Lena, Alessia
Haverkamp, Wilhelm
author_sort Anker, Markus S.
collection PubMed
description AIMS: How often a medical article is cited is important for many people because it is used to calculate different variables such as the h‐index and the journal impact factor. The aim of this analysis was to assess how the citation count varies between Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar in the current literature. METHODS: We included the top 50 cited articles of four journals ESC Heart Failure; Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle; European Journal of Preventive Cardiology; and European Journal of Heart Failure in our analysis that were published between 1 January 2016 and 10 October 2019. We recorded the number of citations of these articles according to WoS, Scopus, and Google Scholar on 10 October 2019. RESULTS: The top 50 articles in ESC Heart Failure were on average cited 12 (WoS), 13 (Scopus), and 17 times (Google Scholar); in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle 37 (WoS), 43 (Scopus), and 60 times (Google Scholar); in European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 41 (WoS), 56 (Scopus), and 67 times (Google Scholar); and in European Journal of Heart Failure 76 (WoS), 108 (Scopus), and 230 times (Google Scholar). On average, the top 50 articles in all four journals were cited 41 (WoS), 52 (Scopus, 26% higher citations count than WoS, range 8–42% in the different journals), and 93 times (Google Scholar, 116% higher citation count than WoS, range 42–203%). CONCLUSION: Scopus and Google Scholar on average have a higher citation count than WoS, whereas the difference is much larger between Google Scholar and WoS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6989289
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69892892020-02-03 The difference in referencing in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar Anker, Markus S. Hadzibegovic, Sara Lena, Alessia Haverkamp, Wilhelm ESC Heart Fail Original Research Articles AIMS: How often a medical article is cited is important for many people because it is used to calculate different variables such as the h‐index and the journal impact factor. The aim of this analysis was to assess how the citation count varies between Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar in the current literature. METHODS: We included the top 50 cited articles of four journals ESC Heart Failure; Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle; European Journal of Preventive Cardiology; and European Journal of Heart Failure in our analysis that were published between 1 January 2016 and 10 October 2019. We recorded the number of citations of these articles according to WoS, Scopus, and Google Scholar on 10 October 2019. RESULTS: The top 50 articles in ESC Heart Failure were on average cited 12 (WoS), 13 (Scopus), and 17 times (Google Scholar); in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle 37 (WoS), 43 (Scopus), and 60 times (Google Scholar); in European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 41 (WoS), 56 (Scopus), and 67 times (Google Scholar); and in European Journal of Heart Failure 76 (WoS), 108 (Scopus), and 230 times (Google Scholar). On average, the top 50 articles in all four journals were cited 41 (WoS), 52 (Scopus, 26% higher citations count than WoS, range 8–42% in the different journals), and 93 times (Google Scholar, 116% higher citation count than WoS, range 42–203%). CONCLUSION: Scopus and Google Scholar on average have a higher citation count than WoS, whereas the difference is much larger between Google Scholar and WoS. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6989289/ /pubmed/31886636 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12583 Text en © 2019 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Research Articles
Anker, Markus S.
Hadzibegovic, Sara
Lena, Alessia
Haverkamp, Wilhelm
The difference in referencing in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar
title The difference in referencing in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar
title_full The difference in referencing in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar
title_fullStr The difference in referencing in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar
title_full_unstemmed The difference in referencing in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar
title_short The difference in referencing in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar
title_sort difference in referencing in web of science, scopus, and google scholar
topic Original Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6989289/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31886636
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12583
work_keys_str_mv AT ankermarkuss thedifferenceinreferencinginwebofsciencescopusandgooglescholar
AT hadzibegovicsara thedifferenceinreferencinginwebofsciencescopusandgooglescholar
AT lenaalessia thedifferenceinreferencinginwebofsciencescopusandgooglescholar
AT haverkampwilhelm thedifferenceinreferencinginwebofsciencescopusandgooglescholar
AT ankermarkuss differenceinreferencinginwebofsciencescopusandgooglescholar
AT hadzibegovicsara differenceinreferencinginwebofsciencescopusandgooglescholar
AT lenaalessia differenceinreferencinginwebofsciencescopusandgooglescholar
AT haverkampwilhelm differenceinreferencinginwebofsciencescopusandgooglescholar