Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science

by: Nisa Bakkalbasi, Kathleen Bauer, Janis Glover, Lei Wang

Biomedical Digital Libraries, Vol. 3, No. 1. (2006)

View FullText article

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-7

Reviews [Write a review of this article]

There are no reviews of this article

Find related articles from these CiteULike users

amarois, JSicot

Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

citation_impact, citation-tracking, google-scholar, gscholar, scopus, web-of-science, wos

Abstract

Researchers turn to citation tracking to find the most influential articles for a particular topic and to see how often their own published papers are cited. For years researchers looking for this type of information had only one resource to consult: the Web of Science from Thomson Scientific. In 2004 two competitors emerged ? Scopus from Elsevier and Google Scholar from Google. The research reported here uses citation analysis in an observational study examining these three databases; comparing citation counts for articles from two disciplines (oncology and condensed matter physics) and two years (1993 and 2003) to test the hypothesis that the different scholarly publication coverage provided by the three search tools will lead to different citation counts from each.

@article{bakkalbasi_three_2006, abstract = {Researchers turn to citation tracking to find the most influential articles for a particular topic and to see how often their own published papers are cited. For years researchers looking for this type of information had only one resource to consult: the Web of Science from Thomson Scientific. In 2004 two competitors emerged ? Scopus from Elsevier and Google Scholar from Google. The research reported here uses citation analysis in an observational study examining these three databases; comparing citation counts for articles from two disciplines (oncology and condensed matter physics) and two years (1993 and 2003) to test the hypothesis that the different scholarly publication coverage provided by the three search tools will lead to different citation counts from each.}, author = {Bakkalbasi, Nisa and Bauer, Kathleen and Glover, Janis and Wang, Lei }, citeulike-article-id = {1372730}, journal = {Biomedical Digital Libraries}, keywords = {citation\_impact, gscholar, scopus, wos}, number = {1}, posted-at = {2007-06-08 14:02:50}, priority = {4}, title = {Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-7}, volume = {3}, year = {2006} }

RIS record

TY - JOUR ID - bakkalbasi_three_2006 L3 - citeulike-article-id:1372730 TI - Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science JF - Biomedical Digital Libraries VL - 3 IS - 1 N2 - Researchers turn to citation tracking to find the most influential articles for a particular topic and to see how often their own published papers are cited. For years researchers looking for this type of information had only one resource to consult: the Web of Science from Thomson Scientific. In 2004 two competitors emerged ? Scopus from Elsevier and Google Scholar from Google. The research reported here uses citation analysis in an observational study examining these three databases; comparing citation counts for articles from two disciplines (oncology and condensed matter physics) and two years (1993 and 2003) to test the hypothesis that the different scholarly publication coverage provided by the three search tools will lead to different citation counts from each. KW - citation_impact KW - gscholar KW - scopus KW - wos AU - Bakkalbasi, Nisa AU - Bauer, Kathleen AU - Glover, Janis AU - Wang, Lei PY - 2006/// UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-7 ER -

RIS BibTeX