Suppr超能文献

对发表在普通医学期刊上的文章在科学网、Scopus和谷歌学术中被引用情况的比较。

Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals.

作者信息

Kulkarni Abhaya V, Aziz Brittany, Shams Iffat, Busse Jason W

机构信息

Hospital for Sick Children, Room 1503, 555 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X8.

出版信息

JAMA. 2009 Sep 9;302(10):1092-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1307.

Abstract

CONTEXT

Until recently, Web of Science was the only database available to track citation counts for published articles. Other databases are now available, but their relative performance has not been established.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the citation count profiles of articles published in general medical journals among the citation databases of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar.

DESIGN

Cohort study of 328 articles published in JAMA, Lancet, or the New England Journal of Medicine between October 1, 1999, and March 31, 2000. Total citation counts for each article up to June 2008 were retrieved from Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Article characteristics were analyzed in linear regression models to determine interaction with the databases.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of citations received by an article since publication and article characteristics associated with citation in databases.

RESULTS

Google Scholar and Scopus retrieved more citations per article with a median of 160 (interquartile range [IQR], 83 to 324) and 149 (IQR, 78 to 289), respectively, than Web of Science (median, 122; IQR, 66 to 241) (P < .001 for both comparisons). Compared with Web of Science, Scopus retrieved more citations from non-English-language sources (median, 10.2% vs 4.1%) and reviews (30.8% vs 18.2%), and fewer citations from articles (57.2% vs 70.5%), editorials (2.1% vs 5.9%), and letters (0.8% vs 2.6%) (all P < .001). On a log(10)-transformed scale, fewer citations were found in Google Scholar to articles with declared industry funding (nonstandardized regression coefficient, -0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.15 to -0.03), reporting a study of a drug or medical device (-0.05; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.01), or with group authorship (-0.29; 95% CI, -0.35 to -0.23). In multivariable analysis, group authorship was the only characteristic that differed among the databases; Google Scholar had significantly fewer citations to group-authored articles (-0.30; 95% CI, -0.36 to -0.23) compared with Web of Science.

CONCLUSION

Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar produced quantitatively and qualitatively different citation counts for articles published in 3 general medical journals.

摘要

背景

直到最近,科学网仍是唯一可用于追踪已发表文章被引频次的数据库。现在有了其他数据库,但它们的相对性能尚未确定。

目的

比较科学网、Scopus和谷歌学术这几个引文数据库中一般医学期刊发表文章的被引频次概况。

设计

对1999年10月1日至2000年3月31日期间发表在《美国医学会杂志》《柳叶刀》或《新英格兰医学杂志》上的328篇文章进行队列研究。从科学网、Scopus和谷歌学术中检索了截至2008年6月每篇文章的总被引频次。在线性回归模型中分析文章特征,以确定与各数据库之间的相互作用。

主要观察指标

文章自发表以来获得的被引频次以及与数据库中被引相关的文章特征。

结果

谷歌学术和Scopus检索到的每篇文章的被引频次更多,中位数分别为160次(四分位间距[IQR],83至324次)和149次(IQR,78至289次),高于科学网(中位数为122次;IQR,66至241次)(两项比较P均<.001)。与科学网相比,Scopus从非英语来源(中位数分别为10.2%和4.1%)和综述(30.8%和18.2%)中检索到更多被引频次,而从文章(57.2%和70.5%)、社论(2.1%和5.9%)以及读者来信(0.8%和2.6%)中检索到的被引频次更少(所有P<.001)。在以10为底的对数转换尺度上,谷歌学术中发现,声明有行业资助的文章(非标准化回归系数,-0.09;95%置信区间[CI],-0.15至-0.03)、报告药物或医疗器械研究的文章(-0.05;95%CI,-0.11至0.01)或有集体作者署名的文章(-0.29;95%CI,-0.35至-0.23)被引频次较少。在多变量分析中,集体作者署名是各数据库间唯一存在差异的特征;与科学网相比,谷歌学术中集体作者署名文章的被引频次显著更少(-0.30;95%CI,-0.36至-0.23)。

结论

科学网、Scopus和谷歌学术对3种一般医学期刊发表文章的被引频次统计在数量和质量上均存在差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验