A Comparison of Selected Bibliographic Database Search Retrieval for Agricultural Information

Abstract

<jats:p>Search result retrieval was compared across eight research literature databases (AGRICOLA, AGRIS, BIOSIS, CAB Direct, FSTA, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science) for three topics from different agricultural disciplines to compare retrieval results based on searcher experience. Precision, recall, and uniqueness were analyzed by rating search results (~2400 citations) for relevancy. A generalized linear model statistical analysis determined that AGRICOLA ranked highest for precision and was statistically more likely to produce a relevant result than four other databases. CAB and Web of Science ranked highest for recall and both overlapped with AGRICOLA for statistical likelihood of producing a relevant result. Google Scholar retrieved the most unique content, but almost half of that content was not judged relevant. AGRICOLA, BIOSIS and CAB retrieved the most unique and relevant content. This study will help researchers and librarians working in the agricultural disciplines to select the bibliographic databases that will provide the most relevant search results and are most likely to meet their research need. It may also serve as a template for future bibliographic research in other disciplines.</jats:p>

Big-data business models: A critical literature review and multiperspective research framework

“…Meho and Yang, 2007). The WoS is a multidisciplinary (citation) database that covers “the most significant journals, conference proceedings and books across a range of disciplines including the sciences, social sciences and humanities” (Ritchie et al, 2018) and is considered one of the “two most extensive” and “most widespread [online] databases” of scientific work (Chadegani et al, 2013: 18). Across disciplines, the “ WoS has been used in thousands of published academic studies over the past 20 years” (Li et al, 2018: 1; cf.…”

Network Visualization: What and How

“…Articles with the same number of connections are grouped in linear clusters around a central point. Data available fromRitchie et al, 2018.…”

Using Esploro to Increase Visibility of Engineering Faculty Research Work

“…There has been some concern around the quality of the data and information gathered through Google Scholar and whether it had been vetted to ensure all the articles are correctly assigned to their authors, which may be a problem for authors with common names. A study done by Ritchie, Banyas, and Sevin found that although Google Scholar provided the most unique content, more than half of it was judged to be not relevant to the author's research output [3]. While using Google Scholar to gather faculty output is a great start, it would be helpful to include other sources.…”