Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 121, Issue 3, pp 1323–1338 | Cite as

Comprehensiveness and uniqueness of commercial databases and open access systems

  • Ming-yueh TsayEmail author
  • Yu-wei Tseng
  • Tai-luan Wu
Article

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.

Keywords

Citation index database Open access system Comprehensiveness of database coverage Scholarly communication Academic assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by Grant MOST 102-2410-H-004-221-MY2 from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C.

References

  1. Bates, J., Best, P., McGuilkin, J., & Taylor, B. (2017). Will web search engines replace bibliographic databases in the systematic identification of research? The Journal of Academic Librarianship,43, 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Franceschini, F., Maisano, D., & Mastrogiacomo, L. (2016). The museum of errors/horrors in Scopus. Journal of Informetrics,10, 174–182.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gusenbauer, M. (2019). Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases. Scientometrics,118, 177–214.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Institutional repository. (2019). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_repository.
  5. Jacso, P. (2005). As we may search—Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science,89(9), 1537–1547.Google Scholar
  6. LaBorie, T. (1985). Library and information science abstracting and index service: Coverage, overlap, and context. Library and Information Science Research,7(1), 183–195.Google Scholar
  7. Löhönen, J., Isohanni, M., Nieminen, P., & Miettunen, J. (2010). Coverage of the bibliographic database in mental health research. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry,64(3), 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Martín-Martína, A., Orduna-Maleab, E., Thelwallc, M., & López-Cózara, E. D. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics,12, 1160–1177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Martyn, J. (1967). Tests on abstracts journals: Coverage overlap and indexing. Journal of Documentation.,23, 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mitra, A., & Awekar, A. (2017). On low overlap between search results of academic search engines. In 2017 international World Wide Web conference (pp. 823–824). April 3–7, 2017. http://papers.www2017.com.au.s3-website-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/companion/p823.pdf.
  11. Poyer, P. K. (1984). Journal article overlap between Index Medicus, Science Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, and Chemical Abstracts. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association,72(4), 353–357.Google Scholar
  12. Science watch. (2013). Successful predictions. Retrieved April 5, 2017, from http://ppt.cc/xA6s.
  13. Ştirbu, S., Thirion, P., Schmitz, S., Haesbroeck, G., & Greco, N. (2015). The utility of Google Scholar when searching geographical literature: Comparison with three commercial bibliographic databases. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,41, 322–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tsay, M., Wu, T., & Tseng, L. (2017). Completeness and overlap in open access systems: Search engines, aggregate institutional repositories and physics-related open sources. PLoS ONE,12(12), e0189751.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wood, J. L., Flanagan, C., & Kennedy, H. E. (1972). Overlap in the List of Journals monitored by BIOSIS, CAS, EI. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,23, 36–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zhu, S., Deng, X., Fang, Q., & Zheng, W. (2008). A study on web searching: Overlap and distance of the search engine results. In J. Wang (Ed.), Data warehousing and mining: Concepts, methodologies, tools and applications (Chapter 4.18, 1926–1937). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Retrieved from: https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=1bpEifVEi2MC&printsec=.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Library, Information and Archival StudiesNational Cheng-Chi UniversityTaipei CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations