Author:
Hilbert Fee,Barth Julia,Gremm Julia,Gros Daniel,Haiter Jessica,Henkel Maria,Reinhardt Wilhelm,Stock Wolfgang G.
Abstract
Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to show how the coverage of publications is represented in information services. Academic citation databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar) and scientific social media (Mendeley, CiteULike, BibSonomy) were analyzed by applying a new method: the use of personal publication lists of scientists.
Design/methodology/approach
– Personal publication lists of scientists of the field of information science were analyzed. All data were taken in collaboration with the scientists in order to guarantee complete publication lists.
Findings
– The demonstrated calibration parameter shows the coverage of information services in the field of information science. None of the investigated databases reached a coverage of 100 percent. However Google Scholar covers a greater amount of publications than other academic citation databases and scientific social media.
Research limitations/implications
– Results were limited to the publications of scientists working at an information science department from 2003 to 2012 at German-speaking universities.
Practical implications
– Scientists of the field of information science are encouraged to review their publication strategy in case of quality and quantity.
Originality/value
– The paper confirms the usefulness of personal publication lists as a calibration parameter for measuring coverage of information services.
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Computer Science Applications,Information Systems
Reference46 articles.
1. Adriaanse, L.S.
and
Rensleigh, C.
(2011), “Comparing Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar from an environmental science perspective”,
South African Journal of Library and Information Science
, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 169-178.
2. Adriaanse, L.S.
and
Rensleigh, C.
(2013), “Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: a content comprehensiveness comparison”,
Electronic Library
, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 727-744.
3. 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, p. 8, available at: www.bio-diglib.com/content/3/1/7 (accessed Januray 20, 2015).
4. Bar-Ilan, J.
(2008), “Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar”,
Scientometrics
, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 257-271.
5. Bar-Ilan, J.
(2012), “JASIST@mendeley”, paper presented at altmetrics12 ACM Web Science Conference 2012 Workshop, Evanston, IL, 21 June.
Cited by
15 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献