Multidisciplinary bibliographic databases

Journal of Korean Medical Science

Volumn 28, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 1270-1275

  Gasparyan, Armen Yuri ^a   Ayvazyan, Lilit ^b   Kitas, George D ^a,c  

^a RUSSELLS HALL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b YEREVAN STATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Armenia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; HUMAN; INTERNET; MEDLINE;

DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; INTERNET; MEDLINE; PUBMED;

EID: 84884406755     PISSN: 10118934     EISSN: 15986357     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2013.28.9.1270     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Gasparyan AY. Bibliographic databases: some critical points. J Korean Med Sci 2013; 28: 799-800.
2. Garfield E. Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 1955; 122: 108-11.
3. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Biomedical journal editing: elements of success. Croat Med J 2011; 52: 423-8.
4. http://thomsonreuters.com/content/science/pdf/Web_of_Knowledge_factsheet.pdf [accessed on 20 March 2013].
5. Marx W. Tracking historical papers and their citations. Eur Sci Ed 2012; 38: 35-7.
6. Brookes BC. Bradford's law and the bibliography of science. Nature 1969; 224: 953-6.
7. Marusić A, Sambunjak D, Marusić M. Journal quality and visibility: is there a way out of the scientific periphery? Prilozi 2006; 27: 151-61.
8. Testa J. The book selection process for the book citation index in web of science. Available at http://wokinfo.com/media/pdf/BKCI-SelectionEssay_web.pdf [accessed on 20 March 2013].
9. Janke RG. Current contents connect and PubMed: a comparison of content and currency. Health Info Libr J 2002; 19: 230-2.
10. Butkovich NJ, Smith HF, Hoffman CE. Database reviews and reports: a comparison of updating frequency between web of science and current contents connect. Available at http://www.istl.org/04-winter/databases.html [accessed on 20 March 2013].
11. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 2008; 22: 338-42.
12. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 2009; 302: 1092-6.
13. Bornmann L, Marx W, Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Diversity, value and limitations of the journal impact factor and alternative metrics. Rheumatol Int 2012; 32: 1861-7.
14. Cecchino NJ. Google Scholar. J Med Libr Assoc 2010; 98: 320-1.
15. Weeks AD. Detecting plagiarism: Google could be the way forward. BMJ 2006; 333: 706.
16. Gehanno JF, Rollin L, Darmoni S. Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013; 13: 7.
17. Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed Digit Libr 2006; 3: 7.
18. Sember M, Utrobicić A, Petrak J. Croatian Medical Journal citation score in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Croat Med J 2010; 51: 99-103.
19. Shultz M. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. J Med Libr Assoc 2007; 95: 442-5.
20. Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J 2012; 53: 386-9.
21. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Blackmore H, Kitas GD. Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatol Int 2011; 31: 1409-17.
22. Kotzin S. Journal selection for Medline. Available at http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla71/papers/174e-Kotzin.pdf [accessed on 20 March 2013].
23. Pizer IH. Automation in the library. Hosp Prog 1966; 47: 65-8, 70, 72.
24. Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J, Dorgan M, Ramos-Remus C. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: Medline alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials 2000; 21: 476-87.
25. Woods D, Trewheellar K. Medline and Embase complement each other in literature searches. BMJ 1998; 316: 1166.
26. Wilkins T, Gillies RA, Davies K. Embase versus Medline for family medicine searches: can Medline searches find the forest or a tree? Can Fam Physician 2005; 51: 848-9.
27. Suh CO, Oh SJ, Hong ST. Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors at the forefront of improving the quality and indexing chances of its member journals. J Korean Med Sci 2013; 28: 648-50.
28. Ramos-Remus C, Suarez-Almazor M, Dorgan M, Gomez-Vargas A, Russell AS. Performance of online biomedical databases in rheumatology. J Rheumatol 1994; 21: 1912-21.