A Comparative Citation Analysis of Web of Science,Scopus, and Google Scholar

This article presents the results of a comparative study of Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar (GS) for a set of 15 business and economics journals. Citations from the three sources were analyzed to determine whether one source is better than another, or whether a new database such as Scopus, or a free database such as GS could replace WoS. The authors concluded that scholars might want to use alternative tools collectively to get a more complete picture of the scholarly impact of an article.     

Chinese-language articles are not biased in citations: Evidences from Chinese-English bilingual journals in Scopus and Web of Science

This paper examined the citation impact of Chinese- and English-language articles in Chinese-English bilingual journals indexed by Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). Two findings were obtained from comparative analysis: (1) Chinese-language articles were not biased in citations compared with English-language articles, since they received a large number of citations from Chinese scientists; (2) a Chinese-language community was found in Scopus, in which Chinese-language articles mainly received citations from Chinese-language articles, but it was not found in WoS whose coverage of Chinese-language articles is only one-tenth of Scopus. The findings suggest some implications for academic evaluation of journals including Chinese-language articles in Scopus and WoS.     

Web of Science和Google Scholar引文检索功能比较

文章从检索范围、检索方法、检索结果以及检索效果等方面对WebofScience和GoogleScholar的引文检索功能进行了比较分析,指出它们各自的优势和不足。     

Google Scholar,Web of Science,and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories

Despite citation counts from Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus being widely consulted by researchers and sometimes used in research evaluations, there is no recent or systematic evidence about the differences between them. In response, this paper investigates 2,448,055 citations to 2299 English-language highly-cited documents from 252 GS subject categories published in 2006, comparing GS, the WoS Core Collection, and Scopus. GS consistently found the largest percentage of citations across all areas (93%–96%), far ahead of Scopus (35%–77%) and WoS (27%–73%). GS found nearly all the WoS (95%) and Scopus (92%) citations. Most citations found only by GS were from non-journal sources (48%–65%), including theses, books, conference papers, and unpublished materials. Many were non-English (19%–38%), and they tended to be much less cited than citing sources that were also in Scopus or WoS. Despite the many unique GS citing sources, Spearman correlations between citation counts in GS and WoS or Scopus are high (0.78-0.99). They are lower in the Humanities, and lower between GS and WoS than between GS and Scopus. The results suggest that in all areas GS citation data is essentially a superset of WoS and Scopus, with substantial extra coverage.     

Health Sciences Patron Preference for Library Spaces: A Multisite Observational Study

Health sciences libraries are often challenged to make decisions regarding physical space allocation without quantitative data to support specific user preferences. This multisite, longitudinal study sought to answer the following questions related to academic health sciences libraries: (1) Which library spaces are popular with health sciences patrons? (2) How does time of day and allocated seating space affect patron choices? (3) What similarities and differences occur in space usage across four different health sciences libraries? Results suggest health sciences libraries must develop a nuanced understanding of their patrons’ preferences to best serve patrons’ needs regarding space allocation. Libraries can benefit from these types of methodological studies that target specific populations, supporting more informed space allocation decision making.     

从引文分析的角度比较Google Scholar与Web of Science的优势与不足

从期刊被引频次的角度出发,采取实证研究的方法,选取国际权威的引文数据库Web of Science和著名的搜索引擎Google Scholar,以<美国信息科学和技术学会杂志>为文献源,对Web of Science和Google Scholar两个引文分析工具进行比较和探讨.     

The Use of Web of Knowledge to Study Publishing and Citation Use for Local Researchers at the Campus Level

This paper provides information on a research project undertaken at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville to study publications by the campus researchers with an emphasis on the STEM (agricultural sciences, physical science, biological sciences, engineering and mathematics, etc.) disciplines at the macro level for a 3-year period. The overall objective of the study was to provide evidence-based data of periodical use to assist with collection decisions and to identify collection strengths at the university level. We used the Web of Knowledge database (Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index) to identify the periodical literature in which our researchers published and those that they cite in their publications. We also determined the extent to which our researchers are publishing in and citing periodicals from the Elsevier, Wiley, and IEEE journal packages. A methodology for extracting citations from Web of Knowledge into an Excel spreadsheet is also provided.     

Google Scholar and Web of Science: Examining gender differences in citation coverage across five scientific disciplines

Many studies demonstrate differences in the coverage of citing publications in Google Scholar (GS) and Web of Science (WoS). Here, we examine to what extent citation data from the two databases reflect the scholarly impact of women and men differently. Our conjecture is that WoS carries an indirect gender bias in its selection criteria for citation sources that GS avoids due to criteria that are more inclusive. Using a sample of 1250 U.S. researchers in Sociology, Political Science, Economics, Cardiology and Chemistry, we examine gender differences in the average citation coverage of the two databases. We also calculate database-specific h-indices for all authors in the sample. In repeated simulations of hiring scenarios, we use these indices to examine whether women's appointment rates increase if hiring decisions rely on data from GS in lieu of WoS. We find no systematic gender differences in the citation coverage of the two databases. Further, our results indicate marginal to non-existing effects of database selection on women's success-rates in the simulations. In line with the existing literature, we find the citation coverage in WoS to be largest in Cardiology and Chemistry and smallest in Political Science and Sociology. The concordance between author-based h-indices measured by GS and WoS is largest for Chemistry followed by Cardiology, Political Science, Sociology and Economics.     

基于CiteSpace的Web of Science图书情报领域的主题探测

为了解近五年图书情报学在SCI优质期刊中的研究主流及研究热点,提供借鉴及潜在研究方向,本研究提取Web of Science中2018年Journal Citation Reports排名靠前的期刊上发表的论文及其引文数据,应用“DEAN”数据清洗流程,借助CiteSpace软件进行分析并绘制可视化图谱,分别从发文机构、著者、研究热点等角度对国际图书情报学研究状态及成果进行分析识别,分析各聚类的代表文章,归纳领域主流研究热点。     

中国情报学图书馆学档案学著者跨学科研究的文献计量学研究

文章从情报学、图书馆学、档案学的学科关系、工作内容与方法等入手 ,分析了 194 9～1985年三学科间跨学科研究的产生背景和基础 ,对三学科间跨学科研究的形式、规模、强度以及跨学科研究著者的著文分布规律等问题进行了统计分析研究。     

知识主管(CKO)与信息主管(CIO)之比较研究

信息主管CIO(Chief Information officer)、知识主管CKO(Chief Knowledge Officer) 等概念及相应的管理理念给信息管理研究领域及新知识经济研究带来了新的思想。本文拟在现有成果的基础上,从CIO与CKO的起源与发展、角色定位、预期目标等方面对两者加以比较研究。同时结合我国国情,提出我国企业要走有中国特色的CIO、CKO之路,并要抓住机遇走出国门,走向世界。     

国内外网站评价研究比较及分析

通过相关文献统计，对国内外网站评价研究进行了比较和分析，指出该研究领域存在的不足，并提出了有关建议。     

运用JCR和Web of Science了解学科发展状况——以核科学与技术科学为例

熟练运用数据库检索系统有利于期刊编辑快速把握学科的发展动态.以核科学与技术科学为例,说明利用Journal Citation Reports和Web of Science数据库可以了解某一领域关注度较高的期刊,科研工作领先的国家,研究工作突出的作者团队,便于编辑快速把握学科发展动态,以便约得高质量的稿件.     

图苑并蒂莲:新世纪图书馆学基础理论教材——浅评《图书馆学基础教程》与《图书馆学导论》

《图书馆学基础教程》和《图书馆学导论》是新世纪出版的两部图书馆学基础理论教材，两位作者在前人的基础上写出了自己的特色，堪称当今中国图苑的并蒂莲花，各自绽放着自己独特的光彩。本文就两部著作的编著思想、知识体系、编排体系3个方面予以比较。     

国际科技合作对中国的科技能力影响分析

文章利用科学计量学、数据挖掘技术,以1994-2006年Web of Sdence（含SCIE,SSCI和A＆HCI）收录的中国发表论文为样本,从论文的机构类型分布、引用影响分布、国际科技合作与全部中国文献引用影响的对比、中国与国际著名机构的合作分布进行了研究,从科学计量学的视角描绘了1994年以来的中国参与国际科技合作对中国科技能力的影响以及中国自主创新能力的演变趋势,进而提出了中国各机构加强国际合作、提高自主创新能力应采取的对策思路。     

欧美国家图书馆网络信息保存的收集策略研究及启示

20世纪90年代中后期,一些西方国家图书馆开展了各种的网络信息资源保存项目。在信息收集策略上,澳大利亚、瑞典、法国、美国和荷兰五国的项目很具代表性,分别采取选择性收集、全面收集、联合收集、专题收集和与出版者协商合作收集等策略。五种收集策略各具特色,对我国国家图书馆的网络信息资源保存项目的信息收集都有一定的启发意义。     

Toward a Usable Academic Library Web Site: A Case Study of Tried and Tested Usability Practices

Usability testing is an important element when designing useful, usable academic library Web sites. Since 2001, members of the Florida International University Libraries Web team have worked toward establishing a process that identifies user needs through usability testing. Starting with the libraries’ first Web site redesign project in 2001, the team has taken an active part in improving Web site user experience. After engaging in multiple redesign efforts, the Web team has developed a process that supports awareness of user experience through continual usability testing and feedback gathering. This article presents strategies and practices to measure Web site user experience, including classic usability testing methods (e.g., card sorting activities, focus groups, and task-based user testing), as well as the team's latest effort to assess Web site analytics and content to identify Web site usage patterns and areas of concern. A history of the Florida International University Libraries’ Web site redesign process is presented to illustrate lessons learned and best practices to facilitate future redesign and testing efforts. Taking a longitudinal look at usability testing at one institution, the study aims to inform the development of an effective strategy for user research and content management.     

深度理解用户:图书情报领域民族志方法运用研究

[目的/意义]运用民族志方法研究图书馆及其用户,有助于洞察与满足用户需求。该方法在国外已形成应用潮流,然国内对此尚未足够重视,有必要予以引介与探讨。[方法/过程]阐述民族志方法在图书情报领域获得运用的背景知识和内在逻辑,分析国外实践案例的具体运用和实际成效。[结果/结论]民族志方法所具备的特质符合图书情报学研究趋势,且具有显著的实用意义,值得国内同行学习和借鉴。     

西部图书馆学之东西部地区图书馆比较研究——兼论比较图书馆学在中国的发展

本文总结了比较图书馆学的发展及在中国的研究情况,论述了西部图书馆学中东西部地区图书馆比较研究的重要性,对21世纪以来东西部地区图书馆比较研究的论文进行了统计和总结,指出东西部地区图书馆比较研究是比较图书馆学在中国发展的一条新路。     

基于F1000与WoS的同行评议与文献计量相关性研究

为比较同行评议与文献计量方法在科学评价中的有效性及相关性,选取F1000以及Web of Science数据库,采用SPSS16.0软件,将近2000篇论文的F1000因子与Web of Science数据库中指标进行相关性比较。结果显示,F1000因子与统计区间内的被引频次呈显著正相关,同时一些F1000因子很高的论文并没有高频被引,反之亦然。结论指出:从统计学的视角,文献计量指标与同行评议结果具有正向相关性,但是无论是同行评议还是文献计量,单独作为科学评价标准都会有失偏颇,以引文分析为代表的定量指标与同行评议方法的结合将是未来科学评价的主流。