IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v12y2025i1d10.1057_s41599-025-04462-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of h-index and other bibliometrics in Google Scholar and Scopus for articles published by translational science trainees

Author

Listed:
  • Laura D. Davis

    (University of Texas at Austin)

  • Corbyn M. Gilmore

    (University of Texas at Austin
    University of Texas Health San Antonio)

  • Adriana Vargus

    (University of Texas at Austin
    University of Texas Health San Antonio)

  • Henry Ogbeifun

    (University of Texas at Austin
    University of Texas Health San Antonio)

  • Yong-Hee P. Chun

    (University of Texas Health San Antonio
    University of Texas Health San Antonio)

  • Christopher R. Frei

    (University of Texas at Austin
    University of Texas Health San Antonio
    South Texas Veterans Health Care System)

Abstract

Bibliometrics can help program directors to conduct objective and fair assessments of scholar impact, progress, and collaboration, as well as benchmark performance against peers and programs. However, different academic search engines use different methodologies to provide bibliometric information, so intermixing results from multiple search engines might contribute to inequitable decision-making. Google Scholar and Scopus provide useful bibliometric information for scholars, including the h-index; however, a search of the literature revealed h-index was higher in Google Scholar than Scopus in other scholar populations; therefore, we hypothesized that h-index might also be higher in Google Scholar than Scopus for translational science (TS) trainees. Trained investigators gathered scholarly profile information from Google Scholar and Scopus for all trainees from NIH-supported TS PhD and TS Training (TST) Programs for predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees. Investigators calculated number of citations/year and m-quotient using the data contained therein. M-quotient was defined as h-index divided by “n,” where “n” equaled the number of years since first publication. Investigators used the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test to compare bibliometrics (citations, citations/year, h-index, and m-quotient) from both sources for TS students and trainees. A total of 38 trainees (13 TS PhD students and 26 TST trainees) had active profiles in both Google Scholar and Scopus. Of the TST trainees, 21 were predoctoral and five were postdoctoral trainees. All four metrics (citations, citations/year, h-index, and m-quotient) were significantly higher (p

Suggested Citation

  • Laura D. Davis & Corbyn M. Gilmore & Adriana Vargus & Henry Ogbeifun & Yong-Hee P. Chun & Christopher R. Frei, 2025. "Comparison of h-index and other bibliometrics in Google Scholar and Scopus for articles published by translational science trainees," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-4, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-04462-2
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-04462-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-025-04462-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-025-04462-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas, 2016. "Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 787-804, February.
    2. Vladlen Koltun & David Hafner, 2021. "The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-16, June.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0138237 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Thelwall, Mike & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1160-1177.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paúl Carrión-Mero & Néstor Montalván-Burbano & Fernando Morante-Carballo & Adolfo Quesada-Román & Boris Apolo-Masache, 2021. "Worldwide Research Trends in Landslide Science," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-24, September.
    2. Gerson Pech & Catarina Delgado, 2020. "Percentile and stochastic-based approach to the comparison of the number of citations of articles indexed in different bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 223-252, April.
    3. Gordana Budimir & Sophia Rahimeh & Sameh Tamimi & Primož Južnič, 2021. "Comparison of self-citation patterns in WoS and Scopus databases based on national scientific production in Slovenia (1996–2020)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2249-2267, March.
    4. Guangyuan Hu & Lei Wang & Rong Ni & Weishu Liu, 2020. "Which h-index? An exploration within the Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1225-1233, June.
    5. Toluwase Asubiaro & Sodiq Onaolapo & David Mills, 2024. "Regional disparities in Web of Science and Scopus journal coverage," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(3), pages 1469-1491, March.
    6. Vivek Kumar Singh & Satya Swarup Srichandan & Hiran H. Lathabai, 2022. "ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1515-1542, March.
    7. Zhiqi Wang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Yue Chen, 2020. "The impact of preprints in Library and Information Science: an analysis of citations, usage and social attention indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1403-1423, November.
    8. Kyle J. Burghardt & Bradley H. Howlett & Audrey S. Khoury & Stephanie M. Fern & Paul R. Burghardt, 2020. "Three Commonly Utilized Scholarly Databases and a Social Network Site Provide Different, But Related, Metrics of Pharmacy Faculty Publication," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-10, April.
    9. Steve J. Bickley & Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in the field of economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2055-2084, April.
    10. Plekhanov, Dmitry & Franke, Henrik & Netland, Torbjørn H., 2023. "Digital transformation: A review and research agenda," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 821-844.
    11. Gunnar Friede, 2019. "Why don't we see more action? A metasynthesis of the investor impediments to integrate environmental, social, and governance factors," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 1260-1282, September.
    12. Luis Javier Cabeza Ramírez & Sandra M. Sánchez-Cañizares & Fernando J. Fuentes-García, 2019. "Past Themes and Tracking Research Trends in Entrepreneurship: A Co-Word, Cites and Usage Count Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-32, June.
    13. Diego Sánchez-González & Fermina Rojo-Pérez & Vicente Rodríguez-Rodríguez & Gloria Fernández-Mayoralas, 2020. "Environmental and Psychosocial Interventions in Age-Friendly Communities and Active Ageing: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-34, November.
    14. Weishu Liu & Rong Ni & Guangyuan Hu, 2024. "Web of Science Core Collection’s coverage expansion: the forgotten Arts & Humanities Citation Index?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(2), pages 933-955, February.
    15. Vivek Kumar Singh & Prashasti Singh & Mousumi Karmakar & Jacqueline Leta & Philipp Mayr, 2021. "The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5113-5142, June.
    16. Weisheng Chiu & Thomas Chun Man Fan & Sang-Back Nam & Ping-Hung Sun, 2021. "Knowledge Mapping and Sustainable Development of eSports Research: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Amoozad Mahdiraji, Hannan & Yaftiyan, Fatemeh & Abbasi-Kamardi, Aliasghar & Vrontis, Demetris & Gong, Yu, 2024. "Disentangling the resiliency of international transportation systems under uncertainty by a novel multi-layer spherical fuzzy decision-making framework: Evidence from an emerging economy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    18. Anne-Wil Harzing, 2019. "Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 341-349, July.
    19. Maor Weinberger & Maayan Zhitomirsky-Geffet, 2021. "Diversity of success: measuring the scholarly performance diversity of tenured professors in the Israeli academia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 2931-2970, April.
    20. Michael Gusenbauer, 2022. "Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2683-2745, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-04462-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.