Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:13:32 BST CiteULike: JSicot Falagas http://www.citeulike.org/user/JSicot/author/Falagas CiteULike.org en-gb Copyright © 2004-2008 citeulike.org http://www.citeulike.org/user/JSicot/article/1688531 <i>FASEB J (20 September 2007)</i><br /><br />The evolution of the electronic age has led to the development of numerous medical databases on the World Wide Web, offering search facilities on a particular subject and the ability to perform citation analysis. We compared the content coverage and practical utility of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The official Web pages of the databases were used to extract information on the range of journals covered, search facilities and restrictions, and update frequency. We used the example of a keyword search to evaluate the usefulness of these databases in biomedical information retrieval and a specific published article to evaluate their utility in performing citation analysis. All databases were practical in use and offered numerous search facilities. PubMed and Google Scholar are accessed for free. The keyword search with PubMed offers optimal update frequency and includes online early articles; other databases can rate articles by number of citations, as an index of importance. For citation analysis, Scopus offers about 20% more coverage than Web of Science, whereas Google Scholar offers results of inconsistent accuracy. PubMed remains an optimal tool in biomedical electronic research. Scopus covers a wider journal range, of help both in keyword searching and citation analysis, but it is currently limited to recent articles (published after 1995) compared with Web of Science. Google Scholar, as for the Web in general, can help in the retrieval of even the most obscure information but its use is marred by inadequate, less often updated, citation information.-Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E I., Malietzis, G. A., and Pappas, G. Comparison of Pub Med, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. Matthew E Falagas Eleni I Pitsouni George A Malietzis Georgios Pappas doi:10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF FASEB J (20 September 2007) 2007-09-24T06:31:23-00:00 2007 FASEB J 1530-6860 comparison gscholar pubmed scopus wos http://www.citeulike.org/user/JSicot/article/2683200 <i>FASEB J. (11 April 2008), fj.08-107938.</i><br /><br />The application of currently available sophisticated algorithms of citation analysis allows for the incorporation of the "quality" of citations in the evaluation of scientific journals. We sought to compare the newly introduced SCImago journal rank (SJR) indicator with the journal impact factor (IF). We retrieved relevant information from the official Web sites hosting the above indices and their source databases. The SJR indicator is an open-access resource, while the journal IF requires paid subscription. The SJR indicator (based on Scopus data) lists considerably more journal titles published in a wider variety of countries and languages, than the journal IF (based on Web of Science data). Both indices divide citations to a journal by articles of the journal, during a specific time period. However, contrary to the journal IF, the SJR indicator attributes different weight to citations depending on the "prestige" of the citing journal without the influence of journal self-citations; prestige is estimated with the application of the PageRank algorithm in the network of journals. In addition, the SJR indicator includes the total number of documents of a journal in the denominator of the relevant calculation, whereas the journal IF includes only "citable" articles (mainly original articles and reviews). A 3-yr period is analyzed in both indices but with the use of different approaches. Regarding the top 100 journals in the 2006 journal IF ranking order, the median absolute change in their ranking position with the use of the SJR indicator is 32 (1st quartile: 12; 3rd quartile: 75). Although further validation is warranted, the novel SJR indicator poses as a serious alternative to the well-established journal IF, mainly due to its open-access nature, larger source database, and assessment of the quality of citations.Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V. D., Arencibia-Jorge, R., Karageorgopoulos, D. E. Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. 10.1096/fj.08-107938 Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor Matthew Falagas Vasilios Kouranos Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge Drosos Karageorgopoulos doi:10.1096/fj.08-107938 FASEB J. (11 April 2008), fj.08-107938. 2008-04-17T19:07:48-00:00 2008 FASEB J. fj.08-107938 impact_factor isi scimago scopus sjr