Home > ResourceBlog > Article

« All ResourceBlog Articles

 

Feed

Monday, 27th April 2009

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

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

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.—Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E I., Malietzis, G. A., and Pappas, G. Comparison of Pub Med, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses.

+ Full Paper (PDF; 71 KB)

Source: FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology)

Hat tip: RH


Category:

Views: 1571




« All ResourceBlog Articles

 

FreePint

FreePint supports the value of information in the enterprise. Read more »


FeedLatest FreePint Content:


  • Click to view the article Product Review of Nexis (Value - Competitors, Development & Pricing)
    Thursday, 29th January 2015

    Jan Knight concludes her product review of Nexis, provider of premium curated business, industry and news information. The fourth part of her review looks at how recent enhancements have added value in terms of time saving and better results.

  • Click to view the article What to Avoid When Implementing Social Tools
    Thursday, 29th January 2015

    There are many published blogs and articles which discuss some of the successful approaches organisations have taken to deploying social tools. Unfortunately many organisations have failed in their deployment of social tools. There are many reasons for this and James Mullan looks at some of them.

  • Click to view the article A FreePint Year in Review
    Wednesday, 28th January 2015

    FreePint reflects on content published in 2014 and how the business has made a difference to readers and customers over the last year.

  • ... more ...

All FreePint Content »
FreePint Topics »


A FreePint Subscription delivers articles and reports that support your organisation's information practice, content and strategy.

Find out more and order a FreePint Subscription by visiting the
completing our online form: Subscription Order page.


FreePint Testimonials

"Thanks for an interesting hour - felt like I was able to step back and think about my profession, vs. only the next task/project. I needed ..."

Read more testimonials and supply yours »






 

 
 
 

Register

Register to receive the free ResourceShelf Newsletter, featuring highlighted posts.

Find out more »

Article Categories

All Article Categories »

Archive

All Archives »