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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |