A comparison of 17 author-level bibliometric indicators for researchers in Astronomy, Environmental Science, Philosophy and Public Health in Web of Science and Google Scholar

Wildgaard, Lorna

doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1608-4

Cited by 76 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior studies compared Google Scholar and the Web of Science for specific disciplines, such as Business & Management (Amara & Landry, 2012;Mingers & Lipitakis, 2010), Earth Sciences (Mikki, 2010), Computer Science (Franceschet, 2010), and Astronomy, Environmental Science, Philosophy and Public Health (Wildgaard, 2015). Other studies compared Scopus and the Web of Science for individual universities (Torres-Salinas, Lopez-Cózar, & Jiménez-Contreras, 2009;Vieira & Gomes, 2009) and Scopus and Google Scholar for the Social Sciences in four Spanish universities (Etxebarria & Gomez-Uranga, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to provide a systematic and comprehensive comparison of the coverage of the three major bibliometric databases: Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science. Based on a sample of 146 senior academics in five broad disciplinary areas, we therefore provide both a longitudinal and a cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases.Our longitudinal comparison of eight data points between 2013 and 2015 shows a consistent and reasonably stable quarterly growth for both publications and citations across the three databases. This suggests that all three databases provide sufficient stability of coverage to be used for more detailed cross-disciplinary comparisons.Our cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases includes four key research metrics (publications, citations, h-index, and hI,annual, an annualised individual h-index) and five major disciplines (Humanities, Social Sciences, Engineering, Sciences and Life Sciences). We show that both the data source and the specific metrics used change the conclusions that can be drawn from cross-disciplinary comparisons. 2Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We found that Web of Science (WoS) is the most completed and wellknown online scientific citation search that is provided by Thomson Reuters [12,13]. Hence, it is a valuable reference for researchers to find and publish the latest technology, trends, enhancements, experimental, challenges and opportunities in research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A bibliometric approach to tracking big data research trends

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Delgado-López-Cózar & Repiso-Caballero, 2013, Wildgaard, 2015, Harzing & Alakangas, 2016. However, so far the bibliometric research community has paid little attention to the fourth data-source in this landscape: Microsoft Academic (Search).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microsoft Academic: is the phoenix getting wings?

Harzing

Alakangas

2016

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we compare publication and citation coverage of the new Microsoft Academic with all other major sources for bibliometric data: Google Scholar, Scopus, and the Web of Science, using a sample of 145 academics in five broad disciplinary areas: Life Sciences, Sciences, Engineering, Social Sciences, and Humanities. When using the more conservative linked citation counts for Microsoft Academic, this data-source provides higher citation counts than both Scopus and the Web of Science for Engineering, the Social Sciences, and the Humanities, whereas citation counts for the Life Sciences and the Sciences are fairly similar across these three databases. Google Scholar still reports the highest citation counts for all disciplines.When using the more liberal estimated citation counts for Microsoft Academic, its average citations counts are higher than both Scopus and the Web of Science for all disciplines. For the Life Sciences, Microsoft Academic estimated citation counts are higher even than Google Scholar counts, whereas for the Sciences they are almost identical. For Engineering, Microsoft Academic estimated citation counts are 14% lower than Google Scholar citation counts, whereas for the Social Sciences this is 23%. Only for the Humanities are they substantially (69%) lower than Google Scholar citations counts.Overall, this first large-scale comparative study suggests that the new incarnation of Microsoft Academic presents us with an excellent alternative for citation analysis. We therefore conclude that the Microsoft Academic Phoenix is undeniably growing wings; it might be ready to fly off and start its adult life in the field of research evaluation soon.

show abstract

A comparison of 17 author-level bibliometric indicators for researchers in Astronomy, Environmental Science, Philosophy and Public Health in Web of Science and Google Scholar

Cited by 76 publications

References 38 publications

Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

A bibliometric approach to tracking big data research trends

Microsoft Academic: is the phoenix getting wings?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About