Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: A case study of the h-index in nursing

被引:112
作者
De Groote, Sandra L. [1 ]
Raszewski, Rebecca [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Univ Lib, Chicago, IL 60607 USA
[2] Univ Illinois, Lib Hlth Sci Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607 USA
关键词
h-index; CINAHL; Scopus; Web of Science; Google Scholar; Nursing research; CITATION; PROS; CONS; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.outlook.2012.04.007
中图分类号
R47 [护理学];
学科分类号
1011 ;
摘要
Purpose: This study compares the articles cited in CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and Google Scholar and the h-index ratings provided by Scopus, WOS, and Google Scholar. Methods: The publications of 30 College of Nursing faculty at a large urban university were examined. Searches by author name were executed in Scopus, WOS, and POP (Publish or Perish, which searches Google Scholar), and the h-index for each author from each database was recorded. In addition, the citing articles of their published articles were imported into a bibliographic management program. This data was used to determine an aggregated h-index for each author. Results: Scopus, WOS, and Google Scholar provided different h-index ratings for authors and each database found unique and duplicate citing references. Conclusions: More than one tool should be used to calculate the h-index for nursing faculty because one tool alone cannot be relied on to provide a thorough assessment of a researcher's impact. If researchers are interested in a comprehensive h-index, they should aggregate the citing references located by WOS and Scopus. Because h-index rankings differ among databases, comparisons between researchers should be done only within a specified database. Cite this article: De Groote, S.L., & Raszewski, R. (2012, DECEMBER). Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: A case study of the h-index in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 60(6), 391-400. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2012.04.007.
引用
收藏
页码:391 / 400
页数:10
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2012, HELP SEARCH GOOGL SC
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2011, US NEWS WORLD REPORT
[3]  
[Anonymous], SJR SCIMAGO J COUNTR
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2012, SCOPUS TITLE LIST
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2011, CINAHL DATABASE
[6]  
Bakkalbasi N., 2006, BIOMED DIGITAL LIB
[7]   Which h-index? - A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar [J].
Bar-Ilan, Judit .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2008, 74 (02) :257-271
[8]   The state of h index research Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance? [J].
Bornmann, Lutz ;
Daniel, Hans-Dieter .
EMBO REPORTS, 2009, 10 (01) :2-6
[9]   Scientific Impact Considered [J].
Conn, Vicki S. .
WESTERN JOURNAL OF NURSING RESEARCH, 2010, 32 (05) :575-577
[10]   Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses [J].
Falagas, Matthew E. ;
Pitsouni, Eleni I. ;
Malietzis, George A. ;
Pappas, Georgios .
FASEB JOURNAL, 2008, 22 (02) :338-342