Beyond Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: An evaluation of the backward and forward citation coverage of 59 databases' citation indices

IF 5 2区生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY

Research Synthesis Methods Pub Date : 2024-06-14 DOI:10.1002/jrsm.1729

Michael Gusenbauer

{"title":"Beyond Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: An evaluation of the backward and forward citation coverage of 59 databases' citation indices","authors":"Michael Gusenbauer","doi":"10.1002/jrsm.1729","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Citation indices providing information on backward citation (BWC) and forward citation (FWC) links are essential for literature discovery, bibliographic analysis, and knowledge synthesis, especially when language barriers impede document identification. However, the suitability of citation indices varies. While some have been analyzed, the majority, whether new or established, lack comprehensive evaluation. Therefore, this study evaluates the citation coverage of the citation indices of 59 databases, encompassing the widely used Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science alongside many others never previously analyzed, such as the emerging Lens, Scite, Dimensions, and OpenAlex or the subject-specific PubMed and JSTOR. Through a comprehensive analysis using 259 journal articles from across disciplines, this research aims to guide scholars in selecting indices with broader document coverage and more accurate and comprehensive backward and forward citation links. Key findings highlight Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Semantic Scholar, and Lens as leading options for FWC searching, with Lens providing superior download capabilities. For BWC searching, the Web of Science Core Collection can be recommended over Scopus for accuracy. BWC information from publisher databases such as IEEE Xplore or ScienceDirect was generally found to be the most accurate, yet only available for a limited number of articles. The findings will help scholars conducting systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and bibliometric analyses to select the most suitable databases for citation searching.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":"15 5","pages":"802-817"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jrsm.1729","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1729","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Citation indices providing information on backward citation (BWC) and forward citation (FWC) links are essential for literature discovery, bibliographic analysis, and knowledge synthesis, especially when language barriers impede document identification. However, the suitability of citation indices varies. While some have been analyzed, the majority, whether new or established, lack comprehensive evaluation. Therefore, this study evaluates the citation coverage of the citation indices of 59 databases, encompassing the widely used Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science alongside many others never previously analyzed, such as the emerging Lens, Scite, Dimensions, and OpenAlex or the subject-specific PubMed and JSTOR. Through a comprehensive analysis using 259 journal articles from across disciplines, this research aims to guide scholars in selecting indices with broader document coverage and more accurate and comprehensive backward and forward citation links. Key findings highlight Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Semantic Scholar, and Lens as leading options for FWC searching, with Lens providing superior download capabilities. For BWC searching, the Web of Science Core Collection can be recommended over Scopus for accuracy. BWC information from publisher databases such as IEEE Xplore or ScienceDirect was generally found to be the most accurate, yet only available for a limited number of articles. The findings will help scholars conducting systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and bibliometric analyses to select the most suitable databases for citation searching.

查看原文本刊更多论文

超越 Google Scholar、Scopus 和 Web of Science：对 59 个数据库引文索引的前向和后向引文覆盖范围的评估。

提供后向引文（BWC）和前向引文（FWC）链接信息的引文索引对于文献发现、书目分析和知识合成至关重要，尤其是在语言障碍阻碍文献识别的情况下。然而，引文索引的适用性各不相同。虽然对一些索引进行了分析，但大多数索引，无论是新的还是已建立的，都缺乏全面的评估。因此，本研究评估了 59 个数据库的引文索引的引文覆盖范围，其中包括广泛使用的 Google Scholar、Scopus 和 Web of Science，以及许多以前从未分析过的其他数据库，如新兴的 Lens、Scite、Dimensions 和 OpenAlex 或特定主题的 PubMed 和 JSTOR。本研究通过对 259 篇跨学科期刊论文进行全面分析，旨在指导学者选择文献覆盖面更广、前后引文链接更准确、更全面的索引。主要研究结果表明，Google Scholar、ResearchGate、Semantic Scholar 和 Lens 是 FWC 搜索的主要选择，其中 Lens 的下载功能更胜一筹。在 BWC 搜索方面，推荐使用 Web of Science 核心合集，其准确性优于 Scopus。一般认为，IEEE Xplore 或 ScienceDirect 等出版商数据库中的 BWC 信息最为准确，但只能提供有限数量的文章。这些发现将有助于进行系统综述、荟萃分析和文献计量学分析的学者选择最合适的数据库进行引文检索。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Research Synthesis Methods MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGYMULTID-MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES

CiteScore

16.90

自引率

3.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines. Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines. By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.