Bibliometric Differences between Scopus and Google Scholar for Ophthalmology Academics in Thailand: A Comparative Study
Keywords:
bibliometrics, Scopus, Google Scholar, ophthalmology, h-indexAbstract
Objective: To compare the bibliometric indices between Scopus and Google Scholar databases using data from the Department of Ophthalmology, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Thailand.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in March, 2020. Bibliometric parameters of each academic from Scopus and Google Scholar databases, including those individuals’ publications, citations,
and h-index, were collected. Descriptive and comparative statistics analyses were performed to identify the differences between the two databases.
Results: The data included the bibliometrics from 28 academic staff members. A total of 500 publications was identified from Scopus and 566 from Google Scholar. There were 8,793 citations recorded in Scopus vs. 13,903 in Google Scholar. The median h-index was 6 (range: 1-20) and 7 (range: 1-21) in Scopus and Google Scholar, respectively. All indices from Google Scholar were statistically significantly higher than those from Scopus. There were high concordances between both databases in the number of publications and h-index. However, the patterns of agreement were different. Moreover, there were increasing trends of bibliometric indices according to the higher academic ranks of the staff members.
Conclusion: Scopus and Google Scholar databases were parallel in displaying bibliographic indices; however, Google Scholar showed higher values. Regarding the comparability of the scholars’ productivity, it is very important to identify which database was used to calculate the bibliometric indices.
References
Mering M. Bibliometrics: understanding author-, article- and journal-level metrics. Serials Rev. 2017; 43:41-5.
Choudhri AF, Siddiqui A, Khan NR, et al. Understanding bibliometric parameters and analysis. Radiographics. 2015;35:736-46.
Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:16569-72.
Agarwal A, Durairajanayagam D, Tatagari S, et al. Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics. Asian J Androl. 2016;18:296-309.
Garner RM, Hirsch JA, Albuquerque FC, et al. Bibliometric indices: defining academic productivity and citation rates of researchers, departments and journals. J Neurointerv Surg. 2018;10:102-6.
Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, et al. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22:338-42.
Adriaanse L. Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison.
Electron Libr. 2013;31:727-44.
Martín-Martín A, Orduna-Malea E, Thelwall M, et al. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J Informetr. 2018;12:1160-77.
Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, et al. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed Digit Libr. 2006;3:7.
Bar-Ilan J. Which h-index? - A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics. 2008; 74:257-71.
Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, et al. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2009;302:1092-6.
Khan NR, Thompson CJ, Taylor DR, et al. An analysis of publication productivity for 1225 academic neurosurgeons and 99 departments in the United States. J Neurosurg. 2014;120:746-55.
Li J, Burnham JF, Lemley T, et al. Citation Analysis: Comparison of Web of Science®, Scopus™, SciFinder®, and Google Scholar. J Electron Resour Med Libr. 2010;7:196-217.
Tschudy MM, Rowe TL, Dover GJ, et al. Pediatric Academic Productivity: Pediatric Benchmarks for the h- and g-Indices. J Pediatr. 2016;169:272-6.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The Thai Journal of Ophthalmology (TJO) is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal published biannually for the Royal College of Ophthalmologists of Thailand. The objectives of the journal is to provide up to date scientific knowledge in the field of ophthalmology, provide ophthalmologists with continuing education, promote cooperation, and sharing of opinion among readers.
The copyright of the published article belongs to the Thai Journal of Ophthalmology. However the content, ideas and the opinions in the article are from the author(s). The editorial board does not have to agree with the authors’ ideas and opinions.
The authors or readers may contact the editorial board via email at admin@rcopt.org.
