Posts Tagged ‘Scopus’
Biblimed, the latest app in SciVerse Scopus
App: Science articles tracked in social media
Altmetric tracks tens of thousands of article mentions a month across Twitter, the scientific blogosphere and publishers including The Guardian, the NYT and New Scientist. It assigns scientific papers a score derived from this data. Around 10 – 15% of all new papers added to PubMed each month are covered (Altmetric covers articles not found in PubMed too).
Searching in the SciVerse Hub or on ScienceDirect while the app is active will rank articles by their Almetric score. Relevant information is also shown under the results themselves.
Tap through to see the actual tweets, snippets of blog posts, Mendeley & CiteULike reader counts and links to news sites
Video on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zhtuBsQCLMw
Mentioned also by:
http://blog.ouseful.info/2011/11/03/who-do-scientists-trust/
Laser medicine: Scopus and Pubmed are the best sources
Summary
The four most popular search engines PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Google Scholar are investigated to assess which search engine is most effective for literature research in laser medicine. Their search features are described and the results of a performance test are compared according to the criteria (1) recall, (2) precision, and (3) importance.
As expected, the search features provided by PubMed/MEDLINE with a comprehensive investigation of medical documents are found to be exceptional compared to the other search engines.
However the most effective search engine for an overview of a topic is Scopus, followed by ScienceDirect and Google Scholar.
With regard to the criterion “importance” Scopus and Google Scholar are
clearly more successful than their competitors.
All in all Scopus is the most effective search engine if one requires only an overview of the topic. For a widespread and in-depth investigation in the area of life science and closely related topics, PubMed/MEDLINE is more appropriate
Tober, Markus. PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus or Google Scholar – Which is the best search engine for an effective literature research in laser medicine? Medical Laser Application. Volume 26, Issue 3, August 2011,
Pages 139-144. Basic Investigations for diagnostic purposes
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1615161511000329
Scopus: “I need it to do my research!”
A former student who enjoyed Scopus in her university claims for a personal subscription model.
“I didn’t know what I had till it was gone. During my PhD at the University of Pittsburgh, I had access to the Scopus database of citation data. I proceeded to use it for various citation analyses. I graduated and moved on, swapping that university affiliation for a collection of at least five others. None of these has access to Scopus. I miss it! I need it to do my research! (…)
Dear Scopus, you know what would make this a lot easier? The ability to buy a personal subscription. I’d buy one. I have money for that. Unfortunately, you only offer access through institutional subscriptions. I’ve talked to librarians at many of my institutions, and they aren’t keen to buy an institutional Scopus subscription… they view it as an upstart “European” also-ran to ISI Web of Science. You and I both know that isn’t true, but it is a really steep hill for me to climb to convince them, as an individual postdoc researcher. Let me have a free personal trial, let me buy a personal subscription.”
Piwowar, Heather. Scopus is better than ISI Web of Science for bulk article-level metrics. Research Remix, Online. Posted on May 8, 2011.
http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/scopus-vs-isi/
WoS Vs Scopus: which is better? studies by Intellogist
Kristin Whitman has started a serie of studies regarding Web Of Science and Scopus for the (excellent) patent community Intellogist.
“The question “which is better” is really unanswerable - first you need to decide what “better” means” she says.
Some of her findings:
- Coverage: number of active or inactive titles (2/28/2011)
- Scopus: 29,566 titles, of 15,175 are unique
- Web of Science: 18,843 titles, of 4,452 are unique
- Common: 14,391
- Coverage: type of journals
- Scopus: 93% scholarly journal – 3% Trade – 2% Report – 2 Book series
- WoS: 98% scholarly – Book series: 2%
- Coverage: country of publication breakdown
- Scopus: US, 30%; UK, 18%; NL, 8%; DE, 7%; FR, 3%, etc.
- WoS: US, 38%; UK, 17%; DE, 7%; NL, 6%; FR, 3%, etc.
To be continued…
Whitman, Kristin. Web of Science Vs. Scopus: which is better. Intellogist, Online:
http://intellogist.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/2406/
Bibliometrics can be fun!
With his world map of scientific collaboration, Oliver Beauchesne, from the US-Canada based Science-Metrix, has built nice visualizaion of science collaboration.
It is based on Scopus data. For those interested in looking at how scientists are connected geographically, a number of companies already promise to help map the geographic reach of an individual or a discipline. These include Springer’s AuthorMapper, Transinsight’s GoPubMed and BioMedExperts.
Van Noorden, Richard. Picture post: world map of scientific collaboration. The Great Beyond (Nature), Posted on January 27,2011.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2011/01/picture_post_world_map_of_scie_1.html
New design for Research Trends
Research Trends, the bibliometric newsletter published by Elsevier and based on Scopus data, has been moved to a nice new WordPress platform.
It offers a fresh look and some social features: ratings of articles, share into an impressive range of social tools (excpet into 2collab which is pretty funny for an Elsevier product!!), etc…
Use of metrics to evaluate researchers
A long history…
Peter Jacso, one of the best experts in STM abstract databases, gives his opinion… In his latest publication, he compared 3 tools: Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar (GS).
A few findings and opinions:
- it is quite likely that more and more administrators will request librarians and other information professionals to churn out metrics-based research evaluation ranking lists about individuals, departments, and colleges
- I am in favor of using metrics-based evaluation. (…) However, because of the shortcomings of these special databases for evaluating individual researchers (as opposed to citation-based subject searching), I am also very much against replacing peer-based evaluation by bibliometric, scientometric and/or informetric indicators in ranking individual researchers, groups of researchers, institutions and countries by the traditional bibliometric indicators (total number of citations, average number of citations per publications), and the new ones alone that combine the quantitative and qualitative measures in a single number, such as the original h-index and its many, increasingly more refined variants
- I have also concerns about the level of search skill and the time needed from librarians and other information professionals to engage –…- in the very time consuming and sophisticated procedures. (…) Still, even such a highly qualified group can leave some methodological issues unexplained, make mistakes in the search process and/or in the compilation of data and/or in the data entry process
- Google-Scholar based metrics: The reason for this indifference is that the hit counts and the citation counts delivered by Google Scholar are not worth the paper they are printed on. Its metadata remain to be a metadata mega mess (Jacso, 2010), and its citation matching algorithm is worse than those of the cheapest dating services
Jacso, Peter. Savvy Searching. Online Information Review, 34 (6) pp. 972-982.
Scopus chosen to track european researchers
Elsevier, has announced that the European Research Council (ERC) has selected its SciVerse Scopus database to assist in the tracking and awarding of funding opportunities for researchers throughout the world.
The ERC is the European funding body managing the ‘Ideas Programme’ of the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme.
Over the next four years, the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) will use the data provided by SciVerse Scopus in combination with a Current Research Information System, to track the success of the projects funded by the ERC in terms of publications and citations.
Information provided by SciVerse Scopus will also help the ERC to fund research based on scientific excellence and, in the long term, to substantially strengthen and shape the European research system.
Set up in 2007 by the EU, the European Research Council (ERC) is the first pan-European funding organisation for frontier research. It aims to stimulate scientific excellence in Europe by supporting the very best, creative researchers of any nationality and age. It funds both senior research leaders (“ERC Advanced Grants”) and younger, early-career top researchers (“ERC Starting Grants”).
Source:
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authored_newsitem.cws_home/companynews05_01817
Drug literature: Scopus would be a better choice than WoS and Medline
According a recent study…
Findings:
- Based on the results from this limited (atorvastatin (Lipitor) and olanzapine) but by no means atypical study of comparative strengths and degree of coverage, the best option for retrieving the largest numbers of articles on a particular drug in the literature would be to use both Scopus and Web of Science, as these two databases complement each other with respect to the journal coverage. MEDLINE retrieved much smaller numbers of documents in all searches and should be used only when the other two databases are not available
- The comparison of the total and annual output of documents obtained from the databases showed that Scopus performed better than the other two databases in these respects
- This article shows that significant differences existed not only in the journal titles but also in the number of documents that the databases retrieved from the same journals. Scopus and WoS complemented well each other in terms of journal coverage, which makes using both of them the best option for comprehensive retrieval of the drug literature
Conclusions:
- Since the introduction of Scopus in 2004, many users and librarians have been trying to evaluate and compare it to WoS. The much easier to navigate interface and the possibility of viewing immediately, on the same screen, the results from analyzing the search results make Scopus a very attractive option for searching the drug literature.
- Based on the results from this study, the best option for comprehensive retrieval of the drug literature would be to use both Scopus and WoS, as these databases complement each other well with respect to the journal coverage. If an institution has to make a decision to choose between Scopus and WoS, Scopus would be a better choice for this kind of literature. Since MEDLINE has found significantly fewer documents than the other two databases, it should be used only when these two databases are not available
Baykoucheva, Svetla(2010) ‘Selecting a Database for Drug Literature Retrieval: A Comparison of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science’, Science & Technology Libraries, 29: 4, 276-288
