Russian scientific publications 2005-2009 in the science citation index, scopus, and chemical abstracts databases

Scientific and Technical Information Processing

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 212-223

  Zibareva, I V ^a,b   Soloshenko, N S ^c  

^a BORESKOV INSTITUTE OF CATALYSIS   (Russian Federation)

^b NOVOSIBIRSK STATE UNIVERSITY   (Russian Federation)

^c All Russian Institute for Scientific and Technical Information   (Russian Federation)

Author keywords

bibliometric analysis; Chemical Abstracts; citation; databases; Russian publications; Science Citation Index Expanded; Scopus

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; CHEMICAL ABSTRACTS; CITATION; RUSSIAN PUBLICATIONS; SCIENCE CITATION INDEX; SCOPUS;

ABSTRACTING; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; PUBLISHING;

DATABASE SYSTEMS;

EID: 80955135488     PISSN: 01476882     EISSN: 19348118     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3103/S0147688211030178     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Marshakova-Shaikevich, I. V., Rossiya v mirovoi nauke: bibliometricheskii analiz, (Russia in World Science: Bibliometrical Analysis), Moscow: IF Rodd. Akad. Nauk, 2008.
2. Adams, J. and King, K., Global Research Report. Russia, Leeds: Thomson Reuters, 2010.
3. Tenopir, C., Online Databases: Measuring Impact and Quality Libr. J., 2007, no. 14, p. 30.
4. Roth, D., The Emergence of Competitors to the Science Citation Index and the Web of Science, Current Science, 2005, vol. 89, no. 9, pp. 1531-1536.
5. Neuhaus, C. and Daniel, H.-D., Data Sources for Performing Citation Analysis: An Overview, J. Document., 2008, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 193-210.
6. Liu, M. and Cabrera, P., The New Generation of Citation Indexing in the Age of Digital Libraries, Policy Futures in Education, 2008, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 77-86.
7. Neuhaus, C. and Daniel, H.-D., A New Reference Standard for Citation Analysis in Chemistry and Related Fields Based on the Sections of Chemical Abstracts, Scientometrics, 2009, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 219229.
8. Russian Index of Scientific Citation, 2011. http://elibrary. ru/projects/citation/cit-index. asp?. Accessed June 30, 2011.
9. Buznik, V. M., Zibareva, I. V., and Zibarev, A. V., Bibliometric Indicators of Russian Chemical Studies in the Beginning of XXI Century on the Basis of the Data Base of STN International Network, Vestn. Ross. Fond Fundam. Issled., 2010, no. 1(66), pp. 11-18.
10. Bornmann, L., Convergent Validity of Bibliometric Google Scholar Data in the Field of Chemistry-Citation Counts for Papers that were Accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or Rejected but Published Elsewhere, Using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts, J. Informetrics, 2009, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 27-35.
11. Soloshenko, N. S. and Kirillova, O. V., Reflection of Russian Journals in Science Citation Index and Scopus Data Bases, Obrazovat. Tekhnol. Obshch., 2006, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 313-320.
12. Zibareva, I. V. and Buznik, V. M., Chemical Abstracts: Data Base for Bibliometric Researches, Ross. Khim. Zh., 2007, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 166-171.
13. Markusova, V. A., Publication Activity of Russian Scientists According to Science Citation Index and Scopus Data Bases, Nat. Techn. Inform. Ser. 1: Organ. Metod. Inform. Raboty, 2008, no. 5, pp. 21-27.
14. Markusova, V. A., Industrial'no razvitye strany i Kitai v bor'be za liderstvo v razvitii nanotekhnologii: obzor nauchnoi literatury po bibliometricheskomu analizu publikatsii v seti Web of Science i Scopus, 1997-2003 gg. Naukovedcheskie issledovaniya. (Industrial-Developed Countries and China in the Struggle for Leadership in Nanotechnology Development: Review of Scientific Literature on Bibliomentric Analysis of Publications in Web of Science and Scopus Data Bases, 1997-2003. Sociology of Science Researches), Moscow: Tsentr Nauchn.-Inform. Issled. Nauke, Obrazovaniyu, Tekhnologiyam, 2009.
15. Jacso, P., As We May Search-Comparison of Major Features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar Citation-Based and Citation-Enhanced Databases, Current Science, 2005, vol. 89, no. 9, pp. 15371547.
16. Fingerman, S., Web of Science and Scopus: Current Features and Capabilities, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 2006. http://www. istl. org/06fall/electronic2. html.
17. Ball, R. and Tunger, D., Science Indicators Revisited-Science Citation Index Versus Scopus: a Bibliometric Comparison of Both Citation Databases, Information Services and Use, 2006, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 293301.
18. Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., and Lin, A., Some Measures for Comparing Citation Databases, J. Informetrics, 2007, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 26-34.
19. Falagas, M. E., Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and Weaknesses, FASEB J., 2008, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 338-342.
20. Salisbury, L., Web of Science and Scopus: a Comparative Review of Content and Searching Capabilities, The Charleston Advisor, 2009, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 5-18.
21. Archambault, E., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., and Lariviere, V., Comparing Bibliometric Statistics Obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus, J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci., 2009, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 1320-1326.
22. Whitley, K. M., Analysis of SciFinder, Scholar and Web of Science Citation Searches, J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci., 2002, vol. 53, no. 14, pp. 1210-1215.
23. Zibareva, I. V., Zibarev, A. V., and Buznik, V. M., Russian Nanoscience: Bibliometrical Analysis on the Basis of STN International Data Base, Khim. Interes. Ustoich. Razv., 2010, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 215-227.