Search results

To date, librarians have not produced a study comparing databases that are appropriate for political science research. This study compares the coverage, content, and retrieval methods for nine databases. The study uses sampling to evaluate search results for six topics, providing relevancy percentages for each database. The article also reviews the types of documents cited in these samples, and provides recommendations for matching each database to particular research needs.

The online search activities described here were conducted to provide environmental scientists with literature to use in their review of pesticide chemicals for regulatory decisions. The first criterion for this data gathering process was to have complete coverage to approach 100% recall of the papers published on the pesticide in question. As new databases were developed and current ones were updated, the number of searchable files multiplied. Running large profiles against each data‐base now resulted in, increased online costs, (connect‐time/print charges), greater overlap and duplication and, inundating the reviewer with thousands of citations. Thus it became apparent that the effectiveness of searching this multitude of applicable databases must be evaluated. Where is the overlap? Which data‐bases contain unique citations? How can the number of databases be decreased without minimizing the percentage of coverage?

This paper aims to report on an investigation into ways in which end‐users perceived citation database interfaces, especially citation database interfaces' usability.

The investigation used the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) constructs of usefulness and ease of use to assess acceptance of citation database interfaces by university graduate students. A structural equation model was used to fit and validate the Citation Database Interface Acceptance Model (CDIAM).

Causal relationships between the constructs considered by the CDIAM were well supported, accounting for 95 per cent of total variance in citation database interface acceptance and usage. The study concluded that perceived usefulness, and not ease of use of citation database interface, is a key determinant of their acceptance and usage. The results of the construct measurement for perceived usefulness and ease of use in this research are quite consistent with the results reported in recent research.

Study findings may help to evaluate human‐computer interaction using the MIS‐proven TAM and improve usability of the citation database system.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of new citation‐enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as a data source for performing citation analysis.

The paper reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation‐enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus.

The study suggests that citation‐enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis.

The paper presents a valuable overview of new citation‐enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation.

Word‐oriented databases of potential relevance to the multidisciplinary field of emergency management were identified by the University of Illinois, Information Retrieval Research Laboratory under contract to the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This article is an extension and outgrowth of that contract. It analyzes forty databases for relevance to emergency management by searching each database using an emergency management subject profile, printing a random sample of citations to determine percent of false drops, and ranking the databases according to number of relevant citations. Bradford's law of scatter is shown to apply to this multidisciplinary field, using databases instead of journals and citations instead of articles. No one database provides more than 19% of the literature, however, illustrating that the literature in the field is widely scattered throughout databases. These findings can help in the choice of the specific databases containing emergency management citations and in the determination of how many databases need to be searched in order to retrieve a given percentage of the literature. A companion article in this issue of Online Review — ‘Evaluation of database coverage: a comparison of two methodologies,’ explains the subject profile evaluation method employed in this project and compares it to another coverage evaluation technique.

Chemical databases have had a significant impact on the way scientists search for and use information. The purpose of this paper is to spark informed discussion and fuel debate on the issue of citations to chemical databases.

A citation analysis to four major chemical databases was undertaken to examine resource coverage and impact in the scientific literature. Two commercial databases (SciFinder and Reaxys) and two public databases (PubChem and ChemSpider) were analyzed using the “Cited Reference Search” in the Science Citation Index Expanded from the Web of Science (WoS) database. Citations to these databases between 2000 and 2016 (inclusive) were evaluated by document types and publication growth curves. A review of the distribution trends of chemical databases in peer-reviewed articles was conducted through a citation count analysis by country, organization, journal and WoS category.

In total, 862 scholarly articles containing a citation to one or more of the four databases were identified as only steadily increasing since 2000. The study determined that authors at academic institutions worldwide reference chemical databases in high-impact journals from notable publishers and mainly in the field of chemistry.

The research is a first attempt to evaluate the practice of citation to major chemical databases in the scientific literature. This paper proposes that citing chemical databases gives merit and recognition to the resources as well as credibility and validity to the scholarly communication process and also further discusses recommendations for citing and referencing databases.

The University of Illnois Information Retrieval Research Laboratory contracted with the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to identify and analyze word‐oriented databases of potential relevance to FEMA. A subject profile technique was used to measure how many potentially relevant citations were found in selected databases, thus allowing a ranking and comparison of databases for the multidisciplinary field of emergency management. “Distribution of Citations in Databases in a Multidisciplinary Field” describes the ranking of databases relevant to emergency management and demonstrates the applicability of Bradford's law of scatter to citations in databases. This article describes an experiment to compare the subject profile technique used in the FEMA project to another common database coverage evaluation technique — the ‘bibliography’ or ‘review article’ technique. Although the two techniques have slightly different purposes, they can both be used to compare the coverage of databases in a particular subject area. This study shows the subject profile technique to be less costly and less time consuming.

Ongoing deliberation about how research productivity should be measured is exacerbated by extensive disparity between the number of citations for scholarly works reported by commercial academic search engines and Google Scholar (GS), the premier web crawling service for discovering research citations. Disparities identified in citation comparison studies have also led to disagreement about the value of the higher number of citations for social sciences and business scholarly articles consistently reported by GS. The purpose of this paper is to extend previous database citation comparison studies by manually analyzing a sample of unique GS citations to a leading operations management journal (i.e. citations found only in GS and not the commercial search engines) to reveal just where these additional citations are coming from.

In addition to comparing citation counts for the three databases, unique GS citation data for the sample of journal articles was manually captured and reviewed. The authors’ approach provides a much more in-depth examination of the provenance of GS citations than is found in previous studies.

The findings suggest that concerns about the value of unique GS citations may not be warranted since the document types for the unique GS citing documents identified in the analysis are dominated by familiar scholarly formats. Predominantly authentic and validated journal publications, dissertations, conference papers, and book and book chapters accounted for the large majority of the unique GS citations analyzed.

The study lends further credence to contentions that the use of citations reported in GS is appropriate for evaluating research impact in disciplines where other formats beyond the English-language journal article are valued.

Developing a more informed understanding of the provenance of unique GS citations in the authors’ field is important because many scholars not only aspire to publish in elite journals with high impact factors based on citation counts provided by commercial databases to demonstrate quality, but also report the larger number of citations for their publications that are reported by GS to demonstrate impact. The in-depth manual analysis suggests that GS provides a more nuanced and comprehensive representation of research impact and international scope than the commercial databases.

The aim of this study is to analyse the disciplinary coverage of Thomson Reuters' Book Citation Index database focusing on publisher presence, impact and specialisation.

The authors conducted a descriptive study in which they examined coverage by discipline, publisher distribution by field and country of publication, and publisher impact. For this purpose the Thomson Reuters' subject categories were aggregated into 15 disciplines.

Humanities and social sciences comprise 30 per cent of the total share of this database. Most of the disciplines are covered by very few publishers mainly from the UK and USA (75.05 per cent of the books), in fact 33 publishers hold 90 per cent of the whole share. Regarding publisher impact, 80.5 per cent of the books and chapters remained uncited. Two serious errors were found in this database: the Book Citation Index does not retrieve all citations for books and chapters; and book citations do not include citations to their chapters.

There are currently no studies analysing in depth the coverage of this novel database which covers monographs.

The purpose of this paper is to establish the research impact of the National Research Foundation (NRF)-rated researchers’ output at the North-West University (NWU), South Africa, from 2006 to 2017.

The study used bibliometrics and altmetrics methods to determine the production of research outputs and the impact of NWU’s NRF-rated researchers’ publications. Various tools including Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, ResearchGate (RG) and Mendeley were used to collect data. The citations in the three bibliographic databases were used as proxy for academic impact, while reads and readerships in RG and Mendeley were used to determine societal impact of the researchers. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to test the relationship between citations in the three bibliographic databases and reads and readerships in RG and Mendeley.

The main findings were that the majority of NWU’s NRF-rated researchers’ publications emanated from GS, followed by Scopus and then WoS. GS output also had more citations. There were 6,026 research outputs in RG which were read for 676,919 times and 5,850 in Mendeley with 142,621 readerships. Correlations between RG and all three bibliographic databases’ citations were scant. Strong relationships between the three bibliographic databases’ citations and Mendeley readerships were found.

Academic librarians who interact with researchers who would like to predict future academic impact of their documents can be advised to consider Mendeley readerships with some level of confidence compared to RG reads. These results point to the importance of constant self-evaluation by researchers to ensure that they have balanced profiles across the three main bibliographic databases that are also considered for ratings. These results point to the relevancy of GS to evaluate research beyond the academy.

The fact that researchers are contributing research that seeks to improve the general welfare of the population (beyond the academy) is a positive sign as society look up to researchers and research to solve their socio-economic problems. Social media play an important role as they serve as indicators that indicators point to wider research impacts and wider access by many different groups of people including the members of society at large. They point to research that is accessible to not only researchers and those who have access to their research but also the society at large.

Although the practice of rating researchers is common in different research ecosystems, the researchers could not find any evidence of studies conducted using a combination of bibliometrics and altmetrics to asses rated researchers’ output. This study covers and compares social impact based on data obtained from two academic social media sites and three main bibliographic databases (GS, Scopus and WoS).