A comparison of citation coverage of traditional and web citation databases in medical science

Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 1-11

  Rahimi, Shahin ^a   Chandrakumar, V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS   (India)

Author keywords

Citation Analysis; General and Internal Medicine; Google Scholar; Open Access Journals; Scopus; Web Citation; Web of Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84916880442     PISSN: 13946234     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Almind, T. C. and Ingwersen, P. 1997. Informetric analyses on the World Wide Web: Methodological approaches to webometrics. Journal of Documentation, Vol. 53: 404- 26.
2. Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., and Wang, L. 2006. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, Vol.3. No.7. Available at: http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/3/1/7.
3. Bar-IIan, J. 2008. Which h-index? - A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics,Vol.74, no.2: 257-71.
4. Bar-IIan, J. and Levene, M. 2007. Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, Vol.1, no.1: 26-34.
5. Bauer, K. and Backkalbasi, N. 2005. An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine, Vol.11, no.9. Available at: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html.
6. Belew, R. 2005. Scientific impact quantity and quality: Analysis of two sources of bibliographic data. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.IR/0504036.
7. Della Seta, M. 2006. Google Scholar and Web of Science: Similarities and differences in citation analysis of scientific publications. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference for Medical and Health Libraries, 11 - 16 September 2006, at Cluj, Romania.
8. Friend, F. J. 2006. Google Scholar: Potentially good for users of academic information. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, Vol. 9, no. 1. Available at: http://www.nature.com/ nature/debates/e-access/Articles/lawrence.html.
9. Fry, J. and Talja, S. 2004. The cultural shaping of scholarly communication: explaining ejournal use within and across academic fields. Proceedings of the 67th ASIST Annual Meeting Information Today, November 13 - 18, 2004: 20-30.
10. Harter, S. and Ford, C. E. 2000. Web-based analysis of e-journal impact: Approaches, problems and issues. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 51, no. 13: 1159-76.
11. Ingwersen, P. 1998. The calculation of Web Impact Factors. Journal of Documentation, Vol.54: 236-43.
12. Jasco, P. 2005. Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online Information Review, Vol.29, no.2: 208-14.
13. Kling, R., and Mckim, G. 1999. Scholarly communication and the continuum of electronic publishing. Journal of American Society for Information Science, Vol. 50, no.10: 890- 906.
14. Kousha, K. and Abdoli, M. 2010. The citation impact of open access agricultural research: A comparison between OA and non-OA publications. Online Information Review, Vol. 34, no.5: 772 - 85.
15. Kousha, K. and Thelwall, M.2006. Motivations for URL citations to Open Access Library and Information Science articles. Scientometrics, Vol. 68, no.3: 501-17.
16. Kousha, K. and Thelwall, M. 2007. Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol.58, no.6: 1055-65.
17. Kousha, K., and Thelwall, M. 2008. Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science Disciplines. Scientometrics, Vol. 74, no.2: 273-94.
18. Meho, I. and Yang, K. 2007. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol.58, no.13: 2105-2125.
19. Mikki, S. 2010. Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for Earth Sciences. Scientometrics, Vol. 82, no.2: 321-31.
20. Mingers, J. and Lipitakis, E. 2010. Counting the citations: A comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, Vol. 85, no.2: 613-25.
21. Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A., and Wrede, C. 2006. The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An Empirical Study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 6, no.2: 127-41.
22. Norris, M. and Oppenheim, C. 2007. Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences' literature. Journal of Informetrics, Vol.1 :161-69.
23. Noruzi, A. 2005.Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri, Vol. 55, no.4: 170-80.
24. Notess, G.R. 2005.Scholarly Web searching: Google Scholar and Scirus. Online, Vol.29, no.4. Available at: http://www.infotoday.com/Online/jul05/OnTheNet.shtml.
25. Pauly, D. and Stergiou, K. 2005. Equivalence of results from two citation Thomson ISI's Citation Index and Google's Scholar service. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. Available at: http://www.int-res.com/articles/esep/2005/E65.pdf.
26. Rousseau, R. 1997. Sitations: An exploratory study. Cybermetrics, Vol.1. Available at: http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v2i1p2.html/.
27. Sanni, S.A. and Zainab, A.N. 2010. Google Scholar as a source for citation and impact analysis for a non-ISI indexed medical journal, Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, Vol.15, no.3: 35-51
28. Sember, M.,.Utrobicic, A. and Petrak, J. 2010. Croatian Medical journal citation score in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Croation Medical Journal, Vol. 51: 99- 103.
29. Smith, A.G. 1999. A tale of two Web spaces: Comparing sites using Web impact factors. Journal of Documentation, Vol. 55, no.5: 577-92.
30. Vaughan, L. 2001. Statistical Methods for the Information Professional: A Practical, Painless Approach to Understanding, Using, and Interpreting Statistics. New Delhi: Ess Ess Publiction.
31. Vaughan, L. and Hysen, K. 2002. Relationship between links to journal Web sites and Impact Factors. Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 54, no. 6: 356-361.
32. Vaughan, L. and Shaw, D. 2003. Bibliographic and web citations: What is the difference?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 54, no.14: 1313-22.
33. Vaughan, L. and Shaw, D. 2005. Web citation data for impact assessment: A comparison of four science disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol.56, no.10: 1075-87.
34. Vaughan, L. and Thelwall, M. 2003. Scholarly use of the Web: What are the key inducers of links to journal web sites?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 54, no.1: 29-38.
35. Walters, W.H. 2007. Google Scholar coverage of multidisciplinary field. Information Processing and Management, Vol. 43, no.4:1121-32.
36. Zhao, D. 2005. Challenges of scholarly publications on the Web to the evaluation of science - A comparison of author visibility on the web and in print journals. Information Processing and Management, Vol.4, no.6: 1403-18.