Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses

Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (AIBS), 9 Neapoleos St., 151 23 Marousi, Greece.
The FASEB Journal (Impact Factor: 5.48). 03/2008; 22(2):338-42. DOI: 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The evolution of the electronic age has led to the development of numerous medical databases on the World Wide Web, offering search facilities on a particular subject and the ability to perform citation analysis. We compared the content coverage and practical utility of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The official Web pages of the databases were used to extract information on the range of journals covered, search facilities and restrictions, and update frequency. We used the example of a keyword search to evaluate the usefulness of these databases in biomedical information retrieval and a specific published article to evaluate their utility in performing citation analysis. All databases were practical in use and offered numerous search facilities. PubMed and Google Scholar are accessed for free. The keyword search with PubMed offers optimal update frequency and includes online early articles; other databases can rate articles by number of citations, as an index of importance. For citation analysis, Scopus offers about 20% more coverage than Web of Science, whereas Google Scholar offers results of inconsistent accuracy. PubMed remains an optimal tool in biomedical electronic research. Scopus covers a wider journal range, of help both in keyword searching and citation analysis, but it is currently limited to recent articles (published after 1995) compared with Web of Science. Google Scholar, as for the Web in general, can help in the retrieval of even the most obscure information but its use is marred by inadequate, less often updated, citation information.


Available from: George Malietzis, Jun 03, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: El objetivo de esta colaboración es estudiar la evolución en el tiempo, más concretamente durante los últimos veinticinco años, de la investigación en Finanzas Corporativas en el seno de la universidad española. Este ejercicio se realiza tomando como punto de partida un gran número de revistas y autores para conseguir una mirada lo más precisa posible a la producción científica en finanzas en España. Tras la compilación de más de dos mil referencias relacionadas de alguna manera con las finanzas y de algo menos de seiscientas estrictamente relacionadas con la finanzas corporativas trazamos las líneas principales de lo que se ha investigado en España, dónde se ha publicado y quién y cómo han publicado. Algún apunte final sobre la internacionalización y el impacto es analizado.
    LIbro conmemorativo de los 25 años de ACEDE, Edited by Juan José Durán, Santiago García-Echevarría, 01/2015; ACEDE.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many profit-oriented companies publish research outcomes in scientific literature. However, very few studies have focused on the capabilities that enable firms to engage in scientific disclosure with consequent potential benefits for the firm. We propose that specific investments are required in order to engage in scientific disclosure activities, since the disclosure process requires distinctive capabilities. This paper empirically analyses the relationship between the composition of industrial research labs’ personnel, basic research and scientific disclosure capabilities. Our econometric analysis provides evidence that scientific disclosure requires specific human resource allocations, which supports the view that scientific disclosure is not just a by-product of standard R&D activities.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study reviews the scientific literature that describes the criteria equations for defining the mismatch between students and school furniture. This mismatch may negatively affect students' performance and comfort. Seventeen studies met the criteria of this review and twenty-one equations to test six furniture dimensions were identified. There was substantial mismatch between the relative heights of chairs and tables. Some systematic errors have been found during the application of the different equations, such as the assumption that students are sitting on chairs with a proper seat height. Only one study considered the cumulative fit. Finally, some equations are based on contradictory criteria and need to develop and evaluate new equations for these cases. Relevance to industry: Ultimately, the present work is a contribution toward improving the evaluation of school furniture and could be used to design ergonomic-oriented classroom furniture.
    International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 05/2015; 2015(48):117-126. DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2015.05.002 · 1.21 Impact Factor