IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v121y2019i3d10.1007_s11192-019-03252-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comprehensiveness and uniqueness of commercial databases and open access systems

Author

Listed:
  • Ming-yueh Tsay

    (National Cheng-Chi University)

  • Yu-wei Tseng

    (National Cheng-Chi University)

  • Tai-luan Wu

    (National Cheng-Chi University)

Abstract

In this study, scholarly communication systems provided by commercial services and open access systems are examined on the basis of the comprehensiveness and uniqueness of their coverage. Commercial databases (Web of Science and Scopus) are compared with search engine (Google Scholar), aggregate institutional repositories (OAIster and OpenDOAR), and the open access system for physics research (arXiv). Retrievals were conducted from the six databases or systems, and the output at each location was compared with that at the others. Journal articles published by Nobel laureates in physics from 2001 to 2013 were selected as samples in this study. The study reveals that search engine tend to provide more resources than do commercial databases but also that commercial databases have better coverage than institutional repositories. Institutional repositories showed a zero percentage of uniqueness when compared with Google Scholar. The results of the present study may provide suggestions to researchers, thereby enabling them to select better information and reference sources for scholarly assessment of individual research productivity and influence; consequently, their international visibility and diffusion may be enhanced.

Suggested Citation

  • Ming-yueh Tsay & Yu-wei Tseng & Tai-luan Wu, 2019. "Comprehensiveness and uniqueness of commercial databases and open access systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1323-1338, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:121:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03252-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03252-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03252-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-019-03252-3?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. Michael Gusenbauer, 2019. "Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 177-214, January.
    2. James L. Wood & Carolyn Flanagan & H. E. Kennedy, 1972. "Overlap in the lists of journals monitored by Biosis, CAS, and EI," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 23(1), pages 36-38, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico & Mastrogiacomo, Luca, 2016. "The museum of errors/horrors in Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 174-182.
    5. Editorial Article, 0. "Abstracts," Economics of Contemporary Russia, Regional Public Organization for Assistance to the Development of Institutions of the Department of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, issue 3.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Maik Hesse & Timm Teubner, 2020. "Reputation portability – quo vadis?," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(2), pages 331-349, June.
    5. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    6. Ruan, Xuanmin & Lyu, Dongqing & Gong, Kaile & Cheng, Ying & Li, Jiang, 2021. "Rethinking the disruption index as a measure of scientific and technological advances," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    7. Enrique Orduna-Malea & Selenay Aytac & Clara Y. Tran, 2019. "Universities through the eyes of bibliographic databases: a retroactive growth comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 433-450, October.
    8. Casey Eaton & Amanda Banks & Kristin Weger & Bryan Mesmer & Robert Moreland, 2023. "Understanding perceived influencers on project outcomes and quantifying disciplinary similarities in academic literature," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 460-487, May.
    9. David Jancsics & Salvador Espinosa & Jonathan Carlos, 2023. "Organizational noncompliance: an interdisciplinary review of social and organizational factors," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 1273-1301, September.
    10. Jingqi Gao & Xiang Wu & Xiaowei Luo & Shukai Guan, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Safety Sign Research: 1990–2019," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-15, January.
    11. Cristina Robledo-Ardila & Juan Pablo Román-Calderón, 2022. "Potential: in search for meaning, theory and avenues for future research a systematic review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 149-186, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Gonzalo Wandosell & María C. Parra-Meroño & Alfredo Alcayde & Raúl Baños, 2021. "Green Packaging from Consumer and Business Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    14. Norma Salgado-Orellana & Emilio Berrocal de-Luna & Calixto Gutiérrez-Braojos, 2021. "A scientometric study of doctoral theses on the Roma in the Iberian Peninsula during the 1977–2018 period," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 437-458, January.
    15. Mikhail Rogov & Céline Rozenblat, 2018. "Urban Resilience Discourse Analysis: Towards a Multi-Level Approach to Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    16. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    17. Perez-Vega, Rodrigo & Hopkinson, Paul & Singhal, Aishwarya & Mariani, Marcello M., 2022. "From CRM to social CRM: A bibliometric review and research agenda for consumer research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 1-16.
    18. Weishu Liu & Meiting Huang & Haifeng Wang, 2021. "Same journal but different numbers of published records indexed in Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection: causes, consequences, and solutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4541-4550, May.
    19. Zoltán Krajcsák, 2021. "Researcher Performance in Scopus Articles ( RPSA ) as a New Scientometric Model of Scientific Output: Tested in Business Area of V4 Countries," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, October.
    20. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.

    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:spr:scient:v:121:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03252-3. 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: http://www.springer.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.