Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Comparison between Scopus, Web of Science, Pubmed and Publishers for Mislabelled Review Papers


Affiliations
1 Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Applied Oral Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
 

The present study examined the incidence rate of re-views being mislabelled by Scopus, and compared this rate with Web of Science (WoS), PubMed and official websites of publishers. Top 400 cited publications de-fined by Scopus as ‘articles’ were examined. Their contents were evaluated to see if any were actually reviews. These publications were cross-checked in WoS, PubMed and publisher websites to identify the assigned document type labels. Out of the 400 Scopus ‘articles’, 117 were reviews (29.3%). The official web-sites of publishers had 16.0% incidence of mislabelled reviews, which was less than Scopus (29.3%) but more than WoS (14.1%) and PubMed (1.9%).

Keywords

Document Types, Library Science, Information Science, Periodical Articles, Reviews.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A. and Pappas, G., Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J., 2008, 22, 338– 342.

  • Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., Shams, I. and Busse, J. W., Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. J. Am. Med. Assoc., 2009, 302, 1092–1096.

  • Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J. and Wang, L., Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed. Digit. Libr., 2006, 3, 7.

  • Wang, Q. and Waltman, L., Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. J. Informetr., 2016, 10, 347–364.

  • Kokol, P. and Vošner, H. B., Discrepancies among Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed coverage of funding information in medical journal articles. J. Med. Libr. Assoc., 2018, 106, 81–86.

  • Schmidt, C. M., Cox, R., Fial, A. V., Hartman, T. L. and Magee, M. L., Gaps in affiliation indexing in Scopus and PubMed. J. Med. Libr. Assoc., 2016, 104, 138–142.

  • Donner, P., Document type assignment accuracy in the journal citation index data of Web of Science. Scientometrics, 2017, 113, 219–236.

  • Gorraiz, J. and Schloegl, C., A bibliometric analysis of pharmacology and pharmacy journals: Scopus versus Web of Science. J. Inf. Sci., 2008, 34, 715–725.

  • Harzing, A.-W., Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the social sciences? Scientometrics, 2013, 94, 23–34.

  • Sigogneau, A., An analysis of document types published in journals related to physics: Proceeding papers recorded in the Science Citation Index database. Scientometrics, 2000, 47, 589–604.

  • Teixeira, M. C., Thomaz, S. M., Michelan, T. S., Mormul, R. P., Meurer, T., Fasolli, J. V. B. and Silveira, M. J., Incorrect citations give unfair credit to review authors in ecology journals. PLoS ONE, 2013, 8, e81871.

  • Miranda, R. and Garcia-Carpintero, E., Overcitation and overrepresentation of review papers in the most cited papers. J. Informetr., 2018, 12, 1015–1030.

  • Williams, R. and Bornmann, L., Sampling issues in bibliometric analysis. J. Informetr., 2016, 10, 1225–1232.

  • Yeung, A. W. K., Mocan, A. and Atanasov, A. G., Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food: a bibliometric analysis of the most cited papers focusing on nutraceuticals and functional foods. Food Chem., 2018, 269, 455–465.

  • Martínez, M., Herrera, M., López-Gijón, J. and Herrera-Viedma, E., H-Classics: Characterizing the concept of citation classics through H-index. Scientometrics, 2014, 98, 1971–1983.

  • Yeung, A. W. K., Bibliometric study on functional magnetic resonance imaging literature (1995–2017) concerning chemosensory perception. Chemosens. Percept., 2018, 11, 42–50.

  • Yeung, A. W. K., Goto, T. K. and Leung, W. K., The changing landscape of neuroscience research, 2006–2015: a bibliometric study. Front Neurosci., 2017, 11, 120.

  • Yeung, A. W. K., Goto, T. K. and Leung, W. K., At the leading front of neuroscience: a bibliometric study of the 100 most-cited articles. Front. Hum. Neurosci., 2017, 11, 363.

  • Yeung, A. W. K., Goto, T. K. and Leung, W. K., A bibliometric review of research trends in neuroimaging. Curr. Sci., 2017, 112, 725–734.

  • Yeung, A. W. K., Heinrich, M. and Atanasov, A. G., Ethnopharmacology – A bibliometric analysis of a field of research meandering between medicine and food science? Front Pharmacol., 2018, 9, 215.

  • Yeung, A. W. K. et al., Dietary natural products and their potential to influence health and disease including animal model studies. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep., 2018, 36, 345–358.


Abstract Views: 365

PDF Views: 121




  • Comparison between Scopus, Web of Science, Pubmed and Publishers for Mislabelled Review Papers

Abstract Views: 365  |  PDF Views: 121

Authors

Andy Wai Kan Yeung
Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Applied Oral Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Abstract


The present study examined the incidence rate of re-views being mislabelled by Scopus, and compared this rate with Web of Science (WoS), PubMed and official websites of publishers. Top 400 cited publications de-fined by Scopus as ‘articles’ were examined. Their contents were evaluated to see if any were actually reviews. These publications were cross-checked in WoS, PubMed and publisher websites to identify the assigned document type labels. Out of the 400 Scopus ‘articles’, 117 were reviews (29.3%). The official web-sites of publishers had 16.0% incidence of mislabelled reviews, which was less than Scopus (29.3%) but more than WoS (14.1%) and PubMed (1.9%).

Keywords


Document Types, Library Science, Information Science, Periodical Articles, Reviews.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv116%2Fi11%2F1909-1914