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: 246

PDF Views: 76




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

Abstract Views: 246  |  PDF Views: 76

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