CitationsSee all >31 References
1.71 · Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of BelgradeAbstractIntroduction. For a long time, The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, US) citation databases, available online through the Web of Science (WoS), had an unique position among bibliographic databases. The emergence of new citation databases, such as Scopus and Google Scholar (GS), call in question the dominance of WoS and the accuracy of bibliometric and citation studies exclusively based on WoS data. The aim of this study was to determine whether there were significant differences in the received citation counts for Serbian Dental Journal (SDJ) found in WoS and Scopus databases, or whether GS results differed significantly from those obtained by WoS and Scopus, and whether GS could be an adequate qualitative alternative for commercial databases in the impact assessment of this journal. Material and Methods. The data regarding SDJ citation was collected in September 2010 by searching WoS, Scopus and GS databases. For further analysis, all relevant data of both, cited and citing articles, were imported into Microsoft Access(R) database. Results. One hundred and fifty-eight cited papers from SDJ and 249 received citations were found in the three analyzed databases. 74% of cited articles were found in GS, 46% in Scopus and 44% in WoS. The greatest number of citations (189) was derived from GS, while only 15% of the citations, were found in all three databases. There was a significant difference in the percentage of unique citations found in the databases. 58% originated from GS, while Scopus and WoS gave 6% and 4% unique citations, respectively. The highest percentage of databases overlap was found between WoS and Scopus (70%), while the overlap between Scopus and GS was 18% only. In case of WoS and GS the overlap was 17%. Most of the SDJ citations came from original scientific articles. Conclusion. WoS, Scopus and GS produce quantitatively and qualitatively different citation counts for SDJ articles. None of the examined databases can provide a comprehensive picture and it is necessary to take into account all three available sources.Discover the world's research13+ million members100+ million publications700k+ research projects
201Serbian Dental Journal, vol. 57, No 4, 2010ORIGINAL ARTICLE / ORIGINALNI RADUDC: 614.258:616.31(497.11)
DOI: 10.2298/SGS1004201JA Citation Analysis of Serbian Dental Journal using
Web of Science, Scopus and Google ScholarJelena Ja?imovi?1, Ru?ica Petrovi?1, Slavoljub ?ivkovi?21Central Library, School of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, S2Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, SerbiaSUMMARYIntroduction For a long time, The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, US) citation databases, available online through the Web of Science (WoS), had an unique position among bibliographic databases. The emergence of new citation databases, such as Scopus and Google Scholar (GS), call in question the dominance of WoS and the accuracy of bibliometric and citation studies exclusively based on WoS data. The aim of this study was to determine whether there were significant differences in the received citation counts for Serbian Dental Journal (SDJ) found in WoS and Scopus databases, or whether GS results differed significantly from those obtained by WoS and Scopus, and whether GS could be an adequate qualitative alternative for commercial databases in the impact assessment of this journal.Material and Methods The data regarding SDJ citation was collected in September 2010 by searching WoS, Scopus and GS databases. For further analysis, all relevant data of both, cited and citing articles, were imported into Microsoft Access(R) database.Results One hundred and fifty-eight cited papers f rom SDJ and 249 received citations were found in the three analyzed databases. 74% of cited articles were found in GS, 46% in Scopus and 44% in WoS. The greatest number of citations (189) was derived from GS, while only 15% of the citations, were found in all three databases. There was a significant difference in the percentage of unique citations found in the databases. 58% originated from GS, while Scopus and WoS gave 6% and 4% unique citations, respectively. The highest percentage of databases overlap was found between WoS and Scopus (70%), while the overlap between Scopus and GS was 18% only. In case of WoS and GS the overlap was 17%. Most of the SDJ citations came from original scientific articles.Conclusion WoS, Scopus and GS produce quantitatively and qualitatively different citation counts for SDJ articles. None of the examined databases can provide a comprehensive picture and it is necessary to take into account all three available sources.Keywords:
Web of S S Google Scholar; Serbian Dental JournalINTRODUCTIONBibliometrics, a subfield of scientometrics or the science of science itself, offers a powerful set of methods and measures for studying the structure and processes of schol-arly communication [1]. Citation analysis, the best known bibliometric approach, is widely used in research output evaluation for assessing research performance or impact of researchers, institutions, regions, articles, journals, etc. Despite its wide use, there are opinions that deny intrinsic value of the citation analysis outcomes [2-5]. Nevertheless, the selfsame author of the citation indexes Eugen Garfield pointed out that citation counts could not identify signif-icance that was unrecognized by the scientific commu-nity [6]. For qualitative evaluation, as a reflection of the community’s work and interests, citedness requires peer judgments. Validity and reliability of citation counts for research assessments, as well as their compatibility with peer reviews have been presented in details in previous studies [7-10]. Most of critics directed to validity of citation analysis refer to the problems associated with used data sources, especially the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, US) citation databases [11].ISI citation databases (Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index and Arts & Humanities Citation Index) have been widely recognized as the most compre-hensive source of scientific information since early 1960s. The online version of ISI Citation Indexes, avail-able through the Web of Science (WoS) and ISI Web of Knowledge portal, provides access to bibliographic data from over 10,000 of the most relevant multidisciplinary journals and over 120,000 conference proceedings. Besides its multidisciplinary nature, citation indexing was the major reason why this service had an unique position among bibliographic databases for more than 40 years [12].After launching of new citation-enhanced databases in November 2004, (a) Scopus from Elsevier, as the primary competitor to the Thomson Reuters citation indexes in the information products market, and (b) Google Scholar (GS), developed by Google Inc., still available in beta test-ing, the situation was considerably changed. Whereas WoS Address for correspondence: Jelena JA?IMOVI?, Central Library, School of Dentistry, University of Belgrade,
4 Rankeova St., 11000 Belgrade, S jelena.jacimovic@stomf.bg.ac.rs
202 Ja?imovi? J. et al. A Citation Analysis of Serbian Dental Journal using Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholarand Scopus are only available to those academics whose institutions are able to bear quite substantial subscription costs, GS became particularly interesting for conducting citation analyses because it is freely accessible.Scopus and WoS provide bibliographic data and cited reference lists only for the items originally indexed by them from 1996 and onwards. With over 17,000 peer-reviewed journals, including the titles published in less developed and developing countries, Scopus offers greater coverage of journals than Thomson Scientific’s citation indexes. Scopus also covers more than 1,200 Open Access journals, as well as 600 trade publications, 350 book series and 3.7 million conference papers from proceedings and journals. On the other hand, GS does not disclose any explicit information about either number of records or its time coverage. The references are automatically extracted from freely available full texts located whether in preprint archives, institutional repositories or personal websites. Data from traditional, subscription based, academic jour-nals are indexed by GS only if the publisher is willing to provide at least the abstract of the paper freely. It is signif-icant that Google is ready to cooperate with libraries, and increasing number of libraries set their link resolvers to GS, providing direct and easy access to subscribed sources through GS [13]. Since KoBSON (Consortium of Serbian Libraries for Coordinated Acquisition) and Serbian Union Bibliographic-Catalogue Database (COBISS.SR) have their own link resolvers on GS, through GS searching users from Serbia can find full texts that Serbian academic institu-tions are currently subscribed.One of well-known limitations of citation analysis is that validity of its results primarily depends on the cover-age of a bibliographic database used as a tool for data collection and analysis. Differences in scope and jour-nal coverage, document types and language, time span and currency, as well as size of the databases can bring in different citation results among databases [14, 15]. Some recent studies compared the results of citation analysis using various databases, including WoS, Scopus and GS, and yielded different and contradictory results [16-19]. Others concluded that a single database cannot provide comprehensive citing coverage and the selection of the ,,best“citation analysis tool depends on item discipline and publication year [11, 20, 21].Citation counts of scientific journals, as well as cita-tion analysis using WoS, Scopus and/or GS are increas-ingly of concern to the academic community [14, 22, 23]. As Sember stated [22], for a small journal from a small country citation rate could greatly affect the increase of its scientific visibility and manuscript inflow, as well as providing the local financial support. For official citation analysis in Serbia, the data obtained from WoS is used as an important indicator in the research performance eval-uation. The results of the study conducted in 2007 [24] indicated the need to include data from all existing rele-vant resources in order to assess the impact of individual scientist from Serbia. The emergence of new citation data-bases, such as Scopus and GS, call in question the domi-nance of WoS and the accuracy of bibliometric and cita-tion studies exclusively based on WoS data. The aim of this study was to determine whether there were signif-icant differences in received citation counts for Serbian Dental Journal (SDJ) found in WoS and Scopus databases, or whether GS results differed significantly from those obtained by WoS and Scopus, and whether GS can be an adequate qualitative alternative for commercial databases in the impact assessment of this journal.MATERIAL AND METHODSSerbian Dental Journal (SDJ), the official journal of the Dental Section of the Serbian Medical Society, is the major source of formal communication for dentists in this region. The journal is freely available within the Repository of the National Library of Serbia, Serbian national citation index – SCIndeks and its own homepage. It is indexed in SCIndeks database and incorporated into Cross-ref (DOI) system of Serbia, and based on that, it is involved in the process of evaluation and performance assessment at national level and co-financed through the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. SDJ was indexed on MEDLINE from 1966 to 1992, and 686 SDJ articles from this period are indexed in Scopus data-base which includes MEDLINE records. Neither WoS nor Scopus database indexed later volumes of SDJ.SDJ citation data was collected in September 2010 by searching WoS, Scopus and GS databases. These three databases were selected because of the possibility for bibli-ographic searching and retrieval of cited references, the basic tool for citation analysis. Scopus and GS were also selected because they represent only real or potential competitors to WoS in the field of citation analysis and bibliometric research.Finding citations of journals, not originally indexed in WoS, can be achieved by searching the cited references. The articles from these journals are indexed in WoS according to the first author only and there is no a canon-ical form of journal title for them. Finding SDJ citations in WoS was conducted by using “Cited Reference Search” mode, based on all possible abbreviated forms of journal title: stom* gl* OR serb* dent* OR strom* glas* s* OR st* gl* srb*, which are the result of inconsistencies in speci-fying the journal title. In the search statements “*” desig-nates the empty space or any characters string that can follow, while OR has the function of Boolean logical oper-ators extracting records that contain any of these names. Variants strom* glas* s* and st* gl* srb* were included into search statement because by comparing citations found in WoS with citations from the other databases, it was revealed that some articles, which cited SDJ, speci-fied the journal title in this way. 71 cited articles and 86 citations were found with 15 variants of the journal title. Due to errors in specifying the author’s names, made by the authors of citing papers, verification of the results was conducted and it was found that 69 articles published in SDJ was cited 85 times. One citation, which was not the database error but appeared in that form in the citing paper, was not possible to verify and confirm, so it was excluded from the analysis.
203Stomatolo?ki glasnik Srbije. ):201-211Scopus search method was almost identical to the method used for searching WoS. Similar search statement (stom* glas* s* OR serbi* dent* j*) and advanced search option with use of REFSRCTITLE code which returns documents where these character strings appear in the reference source title was used. Unlike WoS, Scopus does not allow to overview cited articles, but it is necessary to check all the citing articles manually and confirm the actual number of cited articles. As a result of a search, 155 cited documents appeared, while 68 cited articles and 94 citations, with 13 variants of SDJ title were confirmed.Considering the fact that there are no clearly defined rules and guidelines for the GS search, to collect data on SDJ citations in this database the software Publish or Perish (also enable various statistical analyses) was used. By using the option Journal impact analysis and similar search statements, 177 cited articles with 417 citations were found. However, after removing duplicates and veri-fication of citations, it was revealed that 117 SDJ articles were cited in GS, with 189 received citations.To make sure that some of the citations were not missed out due to the errors in searching or indexing, biblio-graphic record for any citation not found in one or two databases was checked.For further analysis, all relevant data of both, cited and citing articles, were imported into Microsoft Access(R) database. For cited articles, the following characteris-tics were recorded: authors, article title, journal title or some specified form of the SDJ title, year, volume, first page, document type and citation counts retrieved in all three databases. Afterwards, for comparison GS and SCIndeks, citation data in these databases were also imported. Recorded characteristics of citing articles were: authors, article title, journal title, year, document type and language. The citations from all three databases were analyzed and compared. The ones found in one database only, but not the other two, were defined as unique cita-tions. Common citations were those found in all three databases. The overlap in the number of citations among all three databases, between WoS and Scopus, Scopus and GS, and WoS and GS was determined.RESULTSTable 1 shows the number of SDJ articles cited in all three analyzed databases, the number of received citations, as well as self-citation rate. Out of total number of cited arti-cles, 74% were cited in GS, 46% in Scopus and 44% in WoS. From all articles cited in WoS, 86% received only one cita-tion. The number of one time cited articles in Scopus and GS was 81% and 56%, respectively (Table 2). The most cited article (n=7) was published in 1989 by Rak D.Almost a half of cited articles in GS were original research articles (49%), while in other two databases, the percentage of original articles was higher: WoS 57% and Scopus 52% (Table 3). The greatest number of cited arti-cles was published in the last decade of the 20th and first decade of the 21st century. The earliest article, cited in all three databases, dates from 1957 (KULJACA B. Osvrt Table 1. Number of cited articles from SDJ, citation counts and self-citation rate by WoS, Scopus and GS databaseTabela 1. Broj citiranih radova SGS, broj primljenih citata i stopa sa-mocitiranosti prema bazama Web of Science (WoS ), Scopus i Google Scholar (GS)ParameterParametar WoS Scopus GS Tot alUkupnoNumber of SDJ cited papersBroj citiranih radova 69 73 117 158Citation countsBroj citata 85 94 189 249Self-citation countsBroj samocitata 40 36 83 106Table 2. Distribution of cited articles in relation to the number of ci-tations received by WoS, Scopus and GS databaseTabela 2. Raspodela citiranih radova u odnosu na broj primljenih ci-tata prema bazama WoS, Scopus i GSWoS Scopus GSNumber of cited articlesBroj citiranih radovaTimes citedCitiran putaNumber of cited articlesBroj citiranih radovaTimes citedCitiran putaNumber of cited articlesBroj citiranih radovaTimes citedCitiran puta89 085 041 059 159 165 18 2 11 239 2132373040454050515060606171707na razvoj zubne medicine. STOM GLAS S, 1957). Only 15-20% of cited articles were published before 1990.Out of total number of received citations, 69-72% belonged to the group-authored articles (Table 4).WoS and Scopus provide citation details since 1996, but Table 5 shows that 78% of the total number of citations in WoS was obtained since 2008, while in Scopus 68% of citations were obtained for the same period. From 2002 until today, GS received 97% of citations.Original scientific articles represent 82% of the total number of citing articles, 8% are review articles, while 6% are conference proceedings and editorials (Table 6). Annexes, press releases, letters, book chapters and book reviews are present in the lowest percentage, especially in GS. Considering the language of citing papers, 41% were published in English, 35% in Serbian, while 20% were published bilingual. Compared to WoS and Scopus, GS gave greater number of citations from sources that are not in English. 42% of them were in Serbian and 5% in Chinese language (Table 7).The accuracy of received citations is 99% in WoS, 89% in Scopus and 65% in GS.The number of journals which cited SDJ articles in WoS is 30, in Scopus 39, while in GS there are 46 such journals. Among the total number of citations in WoS (n=85), the greatest percentage comes from journal Srpski arhiv za celokupno lekarstvo (Srp Arh Celok Lek) (36%), Vojnosanitetski pregled (Vojnosanitet Pregl) (11%), Collegium Antropologicum and Acta Veterinaria – Beograd (5%). The remaining 43% of
204 Ja?imovi? J. et al. A Citation Analysis of Serbian Dental Journal using Web of Science, Scopus and Google ScholarTable 3. Type of cited articles from SDJTabela 3. Tip citiranih radova ?asopisa SGSType of articleTip radaWoS Scopus GS Total / UkupnoNumber of cited papersBroj citiranih radovaNumber of received citationsBroj primljenih citataNumber of cited papersBroj citiranih radovaNumber of received citationsBroj primljenih citataNumber of cited papersBroj citiranih radovaNumber of received citationsBroj primljenih citataNumber of cited papersBroj citiranih radovaNumber of received citationsBroj primljenih citataInformative articleInformativni rad 13 14 18 22 23 43 32 55Original scientific articleOriginalni nau?ni rad 39 50 38 50 57 86 76 119Case repotPrikaz slu?aja ProceedingsRad s kongresa 775520 31 26 37ReviewRevijski rad 4646716 817Proffesional articleStru?ni rad 455736812Preliminary communicationPrethodno saop?tenjeArticle from praxisRad iz prakse Book reviewPrikaz knjige Tot alUkupno 69 85 73 94 117 189 158 249Table 4. Number of received citations, depending on the nature of the cited reference authorship by WoS, Scopus and GSTabela 4. Broj primljenih citata u zavisnosti od prirode autorstva citi-ranog rada prema bazama WoS, Scopus i GSParameterParametar WoS Scopus GSMultiple authorshipGrupno autorstvo 61 65 135Individual authorshipIndividualno autorstvo 24 29 54Tot alUkupno 85 94 189Table 5. Number of received citations and citing articles per year by WoS, Scopus and GSTabela 5. Broj citata i citiraju?ih radova po godinama prema bazama WoS, Scopus i GSYearGodinaWoS Scopus GSNumber of citationsBroj citataNumber of
articlesBroj radovaNumber of citationsBroj citataNumber of
articlesBroj radovaNumber of citationsBroj citata Number of
articlesBroj radova2010 18 12 16 12 14 92009 23 13 24 14 35 222008 25 15 24 15 29 192007 113311 112006 223322 182005 114423 172004 111123 202003 115413 112002 111113 112001 0032222000 1111111999 4444001998 2222111997 3232001996 2100001995 0000111994 0000001993 000011Tot alUkupno 85 57 94 68 189 144citations are from other relevant scientific journals with impact factor. About 72% of citing journals are from the field of dentistry, general and internal medicine, the rest are journals from surgery, anthropology, toxicol-ogy, materials science, geriatrics, otolaryngology and so on (according to JCR categorization). Among the citing authors, 53.6% are from Serbia and 15.3% from US. Then follow authors from Croatia, Scotland, Canada, Pakistan, Taiwan, Australia etc. Slightly more than 50% of the citing authors belong to the institutions of the University of
205Stomatolo?ki glasnik Srbije. ):201-211DISCUSSIONMost of the previous studies have been primarily focused on comparing citation counts and WoS, Scopus and GS databases coverage, without analyzing the nature of cita-tions themselves. In the current study, similarly to the several studies conducted after , 25], beside the number of citations, the overlap between the citations in the three databases as well as the characteristics of unique citations in each database were examined.The results of the current study confirmed a well-known fact that WoS was a selective source that covered the high-impact scientific journals only, while the cover-age of Scopus and GS databases exceeded this limits, by including citations from additional regional and local sources. The degree of overlap of SDJ citations between the three databases was found 15%, confirming the previ-ous studies conclusions that the degree of overlap between these three citations databases varied by field of study with no more than 31% of citations overlapping in all three databases [21].Citation data collected from Scopus and WoS databases showed a significant overlap of 70%, exceeding the upper limit of expected 58% [11]. Scopus includes 9 (or 11%) more citations than WoS, directly suggesting that Scopus provides more comprehensive coverage. Combining cita-tions from Scopus and WoS could have remarkable impli-cations on journal’s impact factor [26, 27], since common citations from those two databases increase the number of SDJ citations for 24% (from 85 to 105 citations). If only WoS was used to locate SDJ citations, almost a quarter of relevant citations found in both WoS and Scopus would be missed, while the percentage of missed SDJ citations would be 10.5% if only Scopus was used. The number of unique citations found in Scopus was slightly higher compared to WoS (20 or 19% in comparison to 11 or 10.5%, respec-tively). Although Scopus was built as a direct competitor to WoS with a clear ambition to index all publications already indexed by WoS, WoS unique citations not generated by Scopus indicate inconsistencies and errors of the latter database (eg. partial indexing of journal content or incom-plete lists of references), whose accuracy in this work is Table 7. Number of citations received in relation to language citiraju-?eg of the WoS, Scopus and GSTabela 7. Broj primljenih citata u odnosu na jezik citiraju?eg rada pre-ma bazama WoS, Scopus i GSLanguageJezik WoS Scopus GS Tota lUkupnoEnglishEngleski 40 47 39 78SerbianSrpski 17 17 61 66BilingualDvojezi?no 0 2 36 37Other*Drugo* 02810Tot alUkupno 57 68 144 191* French, Italian, Chinese* francuski, italijanski, kineski jezikTable 6. Number of citations received in relation to the type of citing document type by WoS, Scopus and GSTabela 6. Broj primljenih citata u odnosu na tip citiraju?eg rada pre-ma bazama WoS, Scopus i GSType of articleTip rada WoS Scopus GS Tota lUkupnoArticle?lanak 50 56 117 156ReviewRevijski rad 4 6 13 16EditorialEditorijal 1335ProceedingsRad s kongresa 2336Miscellaneous*Razno* 0088Tot alUkupno 57 68 144 191* letters, book chapters, book reviews, contributions and communications* pisma, poglavlja iz knjiga, prikazi knjiga, prilozi i saop?tenjaWeb of ScienceSCOPUSGoogle ScholarTotal=249Ukupno=249937371426144Graph 1. Distribution of unique and overlapped SDJ citations retrie-ved from WoS, Scopus and GSGrafikon 1. Distribucija jedinstvenih i zajedni?kih citata SGS ostvare-nih u bazama WoS, Scopus i GSBelgrade and Nis. The greatest number of citations in Scopus are also from Journal Srp Arh Celok Lek (31%), Vojnosanitet Pregl (6%), International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (Int J Oral Max Surg) (5%), Acta Veterinaria – Beograd and Archive of Oncology (4%) etc. Scopus includes all journals indexed in WoS, plus 9 journal, Serbian and regional, not indexed in WoS. In GS, however, 36% of citations come from SDJ, Srp Arh Celok Lek (17%),Vojnosanitet Pregl and Acta Stomatologica Naissi (5%).Analysis of the distribution of unique and common citations in all three databases (Graph 1) showed that 15% out of 249 received citations were found in all three data-bases. The highest percentage of databases overlap was found between WoS and Scopus (70%), while the overlap between Scopus and GS was 18%, and WoS and GS 17% only. There was a significant difference in the percent-age of unique citations between databases, 58% of them belonged to GS, 6% to Scopus and 4% to WoS.A high overlap degree of SDJ citations between GS and SCIndeks databases was also observed – out of 117 arti-cles cited in GS, 95 (81%) was cited also in other data-base. The remaining articles, not indexed in SCIndeks, were cited in international journals or in new numbers of local journals that have not yet been entered SCIndeks.
206 Ja?imovi? J. et al. A Citation Analysis of Serbian Dental Journal using Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholarestimated at 89%. Scopus unique SDJ citations come from journals, international (n=8) and national (n=4) that are not indexed in WoS. In addition, at the time of searching a small number of Scopus unique citations came from jour-nals that have not yet been entered in WoS database, which determined Scopus as more frequently updated source.Regarding the type of documents where the citations were found, more than 80% of the total number of citations retrieved in these two databases originated from original scientific papers. While in some studies Scopus retrieved considerably more citations from conference proceedings than WoS [11], a significant difference was not observed in the current study and only 4% of the total citations found by both WoS and Scopus came from conference proceed-ings. Since 78% and 68% of all SDJ citations generated by WoS and Scopus respectively are gained in last three years, the possible reason for increased SDJ citation rate is the inclusion of Serbian journals Srpski arhiv za celokupno lekarstvo and Vojnosanitetski pregled in SCI Expanded list in 2008. However, comprehensive data analysis showed that a third of the actual citations were from those jour-nals, while most of them came from the papers published in other relevant international journals. This fact points directly to Serbian author’s increased productivity and achieved success in this three-year period.In order to get more accurate assessment of SDJ impact by citations, one should employ both WoS and Scopus results because these two databases, despite a relatively high overlap, mostly complement rather than replace each other.A comparison of the number of SDJ citations found in all three databases revealed very clear differences between the first two commercial databases and GS. GS produced significantly more unique citations (n=144), which corresponded to previous studies results [11, 16, 20, 21]. Although it was expected that GS retrieves signif-icantly more citations from non-traditional online docu-ments, including master theses, doctoral dissertations, book chapters, books or non-peer-reviewed Web sites [11, 23], 0.7% only of GS unique citations, originated from books, while all remaining GS unique SDJ citations came from papers published in scientific journals, mainly of regional character. Since some prestigious publishers have denied GS access to their archives (such as Elsevier), many significant citations from relevant peer-reviewed jour-nals were completely missed [15]. Therefore, one could conclude that GS is completely superfluous to using both WoS and Scopus databases to generate SDJ citation counts, especially when the focus of the study is on citations in high quality peer-reviewed journals. Whereas citations received from internationally recognized journals are decisive for increasing the visibility of small journals, it is useful to follow their visibility and achieved impact in the global scientific society [22]. GS may serve as relevant complementary tool for accessing this type of citation data.Since GS relies exclusively on the online availability of full text documents (also shown in other studies) [11], all citations found through GS come from documents published after 1993. After conversion of older materials to digital format and publishing on the Internet, retro-spective GS coverage and received citation counts will increase. Institutional repositories or personal Web pages that provide free access to dissertations, books, reports, etc. are still very rare in Serbia. As GS currently identi-fies only citations found in journal full text items, avail-able within the national citation index – SCIndeks and national repository published since 2002, 97% of the total number of GS unique citations originates exclusively from this period. Knowing that only 17.4% of GS unique cita-tions come from international journals, and the rest of the citations are indexed in SCIndeks database, a high over-lapping degree of retrieved citations between these two sources is not surprising.Unlike WoS and Scopus, which almost exclusively cover anglofone sources only, GS provides significantly better coverage of non-English language materials, in partic-ular papers published in Serbian language or bilingual (Serbian/English) (67%). It is interesting that 4.9% of total GS citations come from articles published in Chinese, a fast-rising language of scientific communication [28]. Considering the number of included local sources, GS may be particularly relevant in areas where scientific output is not transmitted exclusively in English.Results showed that GS identified 84 (or 80%) more SDJ citations than WoS and Scopus combined (n=105), indicating that the combining citations from WoS, Scopus and GS databases would increase the number of citations to SDJ as a whole for 137% (from 105 to 249 citations). However, including a greater number of data sources to perform citation analysis does not necessarily lead to more valid assessments of scientific contributions [29]. Used tools need to be examined carefully, both in regard to their potential as well as limitations. With respect to GS, it is necessary to bear in mind that this database has remained in beta status since its release, with poor capability to recognize the metadata and consolidate the matching records, which greatly inflated both the number of hits and the citedness score. The process of removing errors and duplicates from the results is a Sisyphean task, even for users with extensive citation databases experi-ence. Neither Publish nor Perish software, the tools that provide essential output features of GS, could exclude errors and duplicate entries. They could only facilitate their identification.CONCLUSIONBased on conducted citation analysis for Serbian Dental Journal (SDJ) through WoS, Scopus and GS databases, it can be concluded that the significant overlap of cita-tions received in WoS and Scopus databases (70%) exists, while the presented difference in citation rate between these sources is the result of the difference in coverage. Although Scopus provides more comprehensive citation coverage of SDJ, WoS remains an indispensable source of citation data from the most prestigious journals. The current study found insignificant citation overlap between the first two complementary databases and GS (15%). A large number of GS unique citations came from papers
207Stomatolo?ki glasnik Srbije. ):201-211published in scientific journals, mainly of lower impact and regional character. Despite its free access, GS is not an adequate substitute for commercial databases such as WoS and Scopus. Limited to open access sources and sources publishers made available, GS provides extensive SDJ citation counts in scientific journals of lower impor-tance, and largely ignores citations from the highly influ-ential journals of esteemed publishers, otherwise covered by WoS and Scopus databases.The results of this study might be of importance in the selection of appropriate bibliographic database to conduct literature search, as well as the most appropriate tools to generate more precise citation counts and assessments of research impact achieved in a global society. Although a smaller scale, the results of this study, along with all other conducted studies, might contribute to the overall sense and comprehensive picture of the composition and dimen-sions of the existing citation databases.Even though insufficient to generalize, the results of this study clearly indicate that none of the examined data-bases can provide a comprehensive picture and be a substi-tute for the other two sources. In order to collect the most complete data on existing citations, it is necessary to take into account all three available sources.REFERENCES1. Borgman CL, Furner J. Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technolog y. -72.2. Whitehouse GH. Citation rates and impact factors: should they matter? Br J Radiol. -3.3.
Seglen PO. Citations and journal impact factors: questionable in-dicators of research quality. Allergy. 0-6.4.
Seglen PO. Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suit-able for evaluation of research. Acta Orthop Scand. -9.5. Schoonbaert D, Roelants G. Citation analysis for measuring the val-ue of scientific publications: quality assessment tool or comedy of errors? Trop Med Int Health. -52.6. Garfield E. Citation Indexing – Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities. New York: W 1979.7. Aksnes DW, Taxt RE. Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation. -41.8. Meho LI, Sonnenwald DH. Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance: a case study of Kurdish schol-arship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. -38.9. van Raan AFJ. The Pandora’s box of citation analysis: Measuring sci-entific excellence – The last evil? In: Cronin B, Atkins HB. The Web of Knowledge – a Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield. ASIS Monograph Series. Medford, NJ: Information To day.; 2000. p.301-19.10. Kostoff RN. Performance measures for government-sponsored re-search: Overview and background. Scientometrics. -92.11. Meho LI, Yang K. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 5-25.12. Neuhaus C, Daniel HD. Data sources for performing citation anal-ysis: an overview. Journal of Documentation. -210.13. Hartman KA, Mullen LB. Google Scholar and academic libraries: an update. New Library World. 1-22.14. Lee CS. Bibliometric analysis of the Korean Journal of Parasitology: measured from SCI, PubMed, Scopus, and Synapse Databases. Korean J Parasitol. 2009; 47 Suppl:S155-67.15. Jacso P. As we may search – comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Curr Sci. 7-47.16. Bar-Ilan J. Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics. -71.17. Meho LI, Rogers Y. Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-in-dex of human-computer interaction researchers: a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 1-26.18. Vucovich LA, Baker JB, Smith JT. Analyzing the impact of an au-thor’s publications. J Med Libr Assoc. -6.19. Pauly D, Stergiou KI. Equivalence of results from two citation anal-yses: Thomson ISI’s Citation Index and Google’s Scholar service. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. -5.20. Noruzi A. Google Scholar: The new generation of citation index-es. Libri. -80.21. Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed Digit Libr. .22. Sember M, Utrobici? A, Petrak J. Croatian Medical Journal citation score in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Croat Med J. -103.23. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA. 92-6.24. Filipi-Matutinovi? S. Citation analysis for five Serbian authors in Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Infoteka. -35.25. Bar-Ilan J. Citations to the ,,Introduction to informetrics“ indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics. -506.26. Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved? Br Med J. 1996; 313:411-3.27. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. -3.28. Kousha K, Thelwall M. Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: a comparison between four science dis-ciplines. Scientometrics. -94.29. Moed HF, editor. Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Dordrecht: S 2005.Received: 25/09/2010 o Accepted: 02/12/2010
208 Ja?imovi? J. et al. A Citation Analysis of Serbian Dental Journal using Web of Science, Scopus and Google ScholarCitatna analiza ?asopisa ,,Stomatolo?ki glasnik Srbije” prema bazama Web of Science, Scopus i Google ScholarJelena Ja?imovi?1, Ru?ica Petrovi?1, Slavoljub ?ivkovi?21Centralna biblioteka, Stomatolo?ki fakultet, Univerzitet u Beogradu, Beograd, S2Klinika za bolesti zuba i endodonciju, Stomatolo?ki fakultet, Univerzitet u Beogradu, Beograd, SrbijaUVODBi bli o me tri ja, po do blast
sci en to me tri je
uop ?te no
pri me ni-ti
iz u ?a va nju
struk tu re
ko mu ni ka ci ja
[1]. Citat na
ana li za,
naj po zna ti jih
bi bli o me trij skih pri stu pa,
naj ?e ??e
ko ri ??e na
re zul ta ta
po stig nu tog
is tra ?i va ?a,
in sti tu ci-ja,
re gi ja, ?la na ka,
?a so pi sa itd.
pri me ni,
po sto je mi ?lje nja
ospo ra va ju
re zul ta ta
Me ?u tim,
ci tat nih
Gar-fild (Eugen
Gar fi eld) is ti cao je da pu ko bro ja nje ci ta ta ne mo-?e
iden ti fi ko va ti
pre po znat
za jed ni-ci
Citi ra nost,
po sma tra na
in te re sa
na u? ne za jed ni ce,
kva li ta tiv no
vred no va nje zah te va
i pro ce nu
re cen-ze na ta.
Oprav da nost
po u zda nost
usa gla ?e nost
re cen ze na ta is crp no
pred sta vlje ni
is tra ?i va nji ma
usme re nih
va lid nost
re zul ta ta
pro ble me
ko ri ??e njem
po-da ta ka,
In sti tu ta
in for ma-ci je
Fi la del fi ji
(In sti tu te
Sci en ti fic
In for ma tion
sa da Thom son
Sci en ti fic) [11].Jo?
se dam de se tih
go di na dva de se tog
(Sci en ce
Ci ta tion
In dex, So cial
Sci en ces Ci ta tion In dex i Arts &
Hu ma ni ti es Ci ta tion
In dex) su po zna te kao op ?te pri znat i
naj o bim ni ji
iz vor na u? nih
in for ma ci ja.
On lajn ver zi ja
ISI ci tat-nih
in dek sa,
do stup na
Web of Sci-en ce (WoS)
ISI Web of Know led ge,
obez be ?u je bi bli o graf ske
naj re le vant ni jih ?a so pi sa iz svih obla sti na u ke, kao i za vi ?e od 120.000 ra do va sa
kon fe ren ci ja.
Mul ti di sci pli nar na
?i nje ni ca
bi bli o graf skih
po da ta ka,
ci ti ra noj
li te ra tu ri sva kog
in dek si ra nog ra da
je su glav ni
ne ?to vi ?e od 40 go di na za u-zi mao
je din stve nu
po zi ci ju
bi bli o graf skim
[12].No vem bra 2004.
si tu a ci ja se
zna ?aj no
pro me ni la
po-kre ta njem
na me nje nih
pra ?e nju
pri pre mio
El se vi er,
glav ni kon ku rent kor po ra ci ji
tr ?i ?tu in for ma ci o nih
pro iz vo da, i
Scho lar (GS), pro iz vod
kom pa ni je
Go o gle, ali ko ji je i da lje do stu pan u svo joj be ta
ver zi ji.
WoS i Sco pus
do stup ni
na u?-ni ci ma
in sti tu ci je
mo gu? no sti
pret pla te,
GS je po stao po seb no za ni mljiv iz vor za iz-vo ?e nje
ci tat nih
slo bod nog
pri stu pa.
Sco-pus, kao i WoS,
obez be ?u je
bi bli o graf ske
ci ti ra noj li te ra tu ri
da tu ma, i
su iz vor no
in dek si ra ni
ba-ze Sco pus ne ?to je ve ?i od ba ze WoS i ob u hva ta vi ?e od 17.000 re cen zi ra nih
?a so pi sa,
raz vi-je nih
raz vo ju.
re fe ri ?e
1.200 ?a so pi sa
do stup nih
otvo re nom
ko mer ci jal-nih
pu bli ka ci ja,
mi li o na
kon fe ren ci ja.
pre ci zne
in for ma-ci je
ob u hva ?e nih
vre men skom
pe ri o du ko ji
po kri va.
re fe ren ce
auto-mat ski
eks tra hu ju
iz vo ra ko ji
tek stu na la ze
slo-bod nom
pri stu pu
in ter ne tu,
ar hi va ma
re prin-ta,
in sti tu ci o nal nim
re po zi to ri ju mi ma
in ter net
saj to-vi ma.
tra di ci o nal nim
ob li ci ma
li te ra tu re
i iz da va ?i ma
na pla ?u ju pri stup
ra do vi ma, po da ci
in dek si-ra ju
slo bo dan
pri stup KR ATAK SA D R ? A JUvod
In sti tu ta
in for ma ci je
Fi la del fi ji
Scientific), do stup ne i u elek tron-skom
Sci en ce (WoS),
za u zi ma le
je din stve nu
po zi ci ju
bi bli o graf skim
Na sta nak
no vih ba za
omo gu ?u ju
pro na la ?e nje
Sco pus i Go o gle
Scho lar (GS),
do mi nant nost
pre ci znost
bi bli o me trij skih
za sno va nih
is klju ?i vo
po da ci ma
pre u ze tim
zna ?aj ne
do bi je nih
?a so pi sa
,,Sto ma to lo ?ki
Sr bi je”
ba za WoS i Sco pus, od-no sno
re zul ta ti
zna ?aj no
raz li ku ju
do bi je nih
WoS i Sco pus i da li GS
ade kvat na
kva li ta tiv na
ko mer ci jal nim
po da ta ka
?a so pi sa.Ma te ri jal
Pre tra ?i va njem
WoS, Sco pus i GS
pri ku plje ni
ostva re nih
re le-vant ni
ci ti ra nih,
ci ti ra ju ?ih
Mic ro soft
Ac cess(R) ba zu
po da ta ka
ana li zi ra ni
upo re ?i va ni.Re zul ta ti
ana li zi ra ne
pro na ?e no
158 ci ti ra nih
pri mlje nih
ci ti ra nih ra do va,
ci ti ra no
GS, 46% na Sco pus, a 44% na WoS.
za jed ni? ki
pro na ?e ni
Zna ?aj na
pro cen tu
je din stve nih
je din stve ni
ci ta-ti, a Sco pus i WoS
po kla pa nje
obe le? ji ma
pro na ?e nih
WoS i Sco pus
Sco pus i GS (18%), pa WoS i GS
ostva re nih
ori gi nal ni
ra do vi.Za klju ?ak WoS, Sco pus i GS
kvan ti ta tiv no
kva li ta tiv no
raz li ?i te
ci ti ra no sti
pri ku plja nje
kom plet nih
po-da ta ka
ci ti ra no sti
is pi ta nih
sve o bu hvat nu
neo p hod no
ras-po lo ?i va
iz vo ra.Klju? ne
Sci en ce; Sco pus; Go o gle
Sto ma to lo ?ki
209Stomatolo?ki glasnik Srbije. ):201-211ba rem sa ?et ku ra da. Zna ?aj no je to da je Go o gle spre man za sa-rad nju sa
bi bli o te ka ma i
ve ?i broj
bi bli o te ka
po sta vlja svo-je
raz re ?i va ?e
obez be ?u ju ?i
di rek tan pri stup svo-jim iz vo ri ma i na ovaj na ?in [13]. KoB SON
(Kon zor ci jum
bi bli-o te ka
ob je di nje nu na bav ku)
uza jam ni
bi bli o-te ka
(CO BISS.SR)
po ve za ni
ko ri sni-ci ma
omo gu ?a va
pre tra ?u ju
pu ne tek sto ve
in sti tu ci ja.Jed no
po zna tih
ogra ni ?e nja
je ste ?i nje ni ca
va lid nost
re zul ta ta
po-kri ve no sti
bi bli o graf ske
ko ri ??e na
za pri ku plja nje
po da ta ka
ana li zu.
pod ru? ju
?a so pi si-ma
ob u hva ta ju,
ti po vi ma
do ku me na ta,
vre men-skim
okvi ri ma
ak tu el no sti,
ve li ?i na ma
sa mih ba za
do bi ja nje
raz li ?i tih
re zul-ta ta
sko ra ?nje
po re de ?i
re-zul ta te
ci tat nih
do bi je nih
ko ri ??e njem
WoS, Sco-pus i GS,
pri ka za le
raz li ?i te
re zul ta te
[16-19], dok su dru ge je din stve ne u za klju? ku da ni jed na od ovih ba-za
sve o bu hvat nu
po kri ve nost
iz bor ,,naj bo ljeg”
re dov no sti
ob ja vlji va nja pu-bli ka ci je
21].Po da ci
o ci ti ra no sti
?a so pi sa i
do bi je nih
ko ri ??e njem
Wo S , Sco pus i GS sve vi ?e su pred met in te re so va nja
aka dem ske
za jed ni ce
ci ti ra no sti
?a so pi sa
ve li koj me ri
uti ca ti ka ko
po ve ?a nje
na u? ne vi-dlji vo sti
ob ja vlji va nje,
obez be-?i va nje
fi nan sij ske
po dr ?ke.
ana-li zu,
po ka za telj
vred no va nju
na u? nog u?in ka,
zva-ni? no
do bi je ni
osno vu WoS,
re zul ta ti stu di-je
iz ve de ne
uklju ?i va nja po da ta ka
re le vant nih
po sto je ?ih
va lo ri-zo vao
in di vi du al nih
na u? ni ka
Na sta nak
no vih ci tat nih ba za, kao ?to su Sco pus i GS,
do mi-nant nost
pre ci znost
bi bli o me trij skih
ci tat nih
za sno va nih is klju ?i vo
po da ci ma
pre u ze tim
ba ze.Cilj ovog ra da je bio da se utvr di da li po sto je zna ?aj ne raz li-ke
do bi je nih ci ta ta
,,Sto ma to lo ?ki gla snik
Sr-bi je”
ba za WoS i Sco pus, od no sno da li se re zul ta-ti GS
zna ?aj no
raz li ku ju od
do bi je nih
WoS i Sco pus i da li GS
bi ti ade kvat na
kva li ta tiv na
ko mer ci jal-nim
po da ta ka
?a so pi sa.MATERIJAL I METODE RADASGS
?a so pis Sto ma to lo ?ke
le kar skog dru ?tva i
glav ni iz vor
for mal ne ko mu ni ka ci je
sto ma to lo ga
pro-sto ri ma.
slo bod nom
pri stu pu
Re po zi to ri-ju ma
bi bli o te ke
na ci o nal nog
ci-tat nog
(SCIn deks)
sop stve ne
in ter net
stra ni ce.
Re fe-ri san je u SCIn deks ba zi,
Cross-ref (DOI), na osno vu
vred no va nju
na ci o nal-nim
okvi ri ma
ostva ru je
su fi nan si ra nje
Mi ni star stva za na u ku i teh no lo ?ki raz voj Sr bi je. Ka ko je od 1966. do 1992. go di ne
re fe ri san
ME DLI NE, 686 ra do va SGS iz tog pe ri o da
na la zi se
in dek si ra no u
ob u hva ta
i za-pi se
ME DLI NE.
re fe ri sa na ni u ba zi WoS, ni u Sco pus.Pri ku plja nje
po da ta ka
ci ti ra no sti
u sep tem bru 2010.
pre tra ?i va njem
ba za WoS, Sco pus i GS. Ove
iza bra ne
mo gu? no sti
bi bli o graf skih
pre-tra ?i va nja
pro na la ?e nja
ci ti ra nih
re fe ren ci,
iz vo ?e nje
ana li ze.
Sco pus i GS su iza bra ni jer pred-sta vlja ju
po ten ci jal ne kon ku ren te
WoS na po lju
bi bli o me trij skih
is tra ?i va nja.Pro na la ?e nje
?a so pi se
in dek si ra-ni na WoS
ostva ri ti
pre tra ?i va njem
ci ti ra nih
re fe ren-ci. Ra do vi iz tih ?a so pi sa su na WoS
re fe ri sa ni
osno vu pr vog
ka non ski
?a so-pi sa.
Pro na la ?e nje
op ci je Ci ted
Re fe ren ce
Se arch, na osno vu svih mo gu ?ih skra ?e nih ob-li ka
na slo va ?a so pi sa:
stom* gl* OR serb* dent* OR strom* glas* s* OR st* gl* srb*,
re zul tat
ne do sled no sti
na vo ?e nju na slo va
?a so pi sa.
pre tra ?i va nje
zve zdi ca
ozna-?a va
pra zno me sto
ka rak te ra
po ja-vi ti
po sle na ve de nih
ni ski, dok
funk ci ju
lo-gi? kih
ope ra to ra
iz dva ja ju ?i
na-ve de nih
Va ri jan te
strom* glas* s* i st* gl* srb*
uklju ?e-ne
upo re ?i va nja
pro na ?e nih
ci ta ti ma
usta no vlje no
ra do vi kod ko jih je na ziv ?a so pi sa na ve den na ovaj na ?in. Kao re zul-tat pre tra ?i va nja do bi jen je 71 ci ti ran rad i 86 ci ta ta, sa 15 va-ri jan ti
na vo ?e nju
po da-ci su pro ve re
utvr ?e no je da je 69 ra do va ob ja vlje nih u SGS na WoS
ci ti ra no
pred sta vlja
gre ?ku ba ze i za ko ji je usta no vlje no da je u tom ob li ku na ve den u sa-mom
ci ti ra ju ?em
ra du ni je
pro ve ri ti i
po tvr di ti, pa je
ana li ze.Me to da
pre tra ?i va nja
isto vet na
pre tra ?i va nja
Ko ri ??e ni
pre tra-?i va nje
(stom* glas* s* OR ser bi* dent* j*)
na pred nog pre tra ?i va nja
REF SRC TI TLE,
pre tra gu po
na slo vi ma
ci ti ra nih
?a so pi sa.
Me ?u tim,
WoS, Sco pus
mo gu? nost
sa gle da va nja
ci ti ra nih ra do va,
ve? je neo p hod no
ma nu el no
iz vr ?i ti
ci ti ra ju ?ih
ra do va i
utvr di ti
ci ti ra nih
?la na ka.
re zul tat
pre tra ?i-va nja
ci ti ra nih
do ku me na ta,
po tvr ?e no
ci ti ra nih
13 va ri jan ti
de fi ni sa na
pre tra ?i va nje
pri ku plja nje
po da ta ka
ci ti ra no-sti SGS u ovoj ba zi ko ri ??en je pro gram Pu blish
Pe rish, ko-ji
isto vre me no
omo gu ?a va
raz li ?i tih
sta ti sti? kih
ana-li za.
Ko ri ??e njem
analysis i sli? nih iz ra-za
pre tra ?i va nje,
do bi je no
ci ti ra nih
Me ?u tim,
ukla nja nja
du pli ka ta
ve ri fi ka ci je
ci ta-ta, is po sta vi lo se da je na GS ci ti ra no 117 ra do va SGS, sa 189 pri mlje nih
ci ta ta.Ka ko
bi li si gur ni
ci ta ta ni je
pro pu ?ten
zbog gre ?a ka
pre tra ?i va nju ili
in dek si ra nju, pro ve re ni su
bi bli o graf-ski za pi si za sva ki ci tat ko ji ni je pro na ?en u jed noj ili dve ba ze.Svi
re le vant ni
po da ci, ka ko
ci ti ra nih,
ci ti ra ju ?ih
ra do va, une ti su u Mic ro soft
Ac cess(R) ba zu
po da ta ka
ra di ana li ze.
ci ti-ra ne
be le ?e ni
?a so pi sa,
na ve de ni
vo lu men,
po-?et na stra na, tip ra da i po da ci o bro ju ci ta ta u sve tri ba ze. Na-knad no
po re ?e nja
GS i SCIn dek sa, une ti i po da ci o ci-ti ra no sti
Be le ?e ne
ka rak te ri sti ke
ci ti ra ju ?ih
210 Ja?imovi? J. et al. A Citation Analysis of Serbian Dental Journal using Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholarra do va
?a so pis,
je zik. Za tim
do bi je ni
ana li zi ra ni
upo re ?e ni. Kao
je din stve ni
de fi ni sa ni
pro na ?e ni sa mo u jed noj ba zi, a ne u dru ge dve. Za jed ni? ki ci ta ti su oni ko ji su pro na ?e ni
Utvr ?e no
pre kla pa nje
pre kla pa nje
WoS i Sco pus, Sco pus i GS, kao i Wo S
i GS.REZULTATIU ta be li 1 pri ka za ni su broj ra do va SGS ci ti ra nih u sve tri ana-li zi ra ne
pri mlje nih
sto pa sa mo ci ti ra no sti.
Od ukup nog
ci ti ra nih
ci ti ra no
GS, 46% u ba zi
Sco pus, a 44% u ba zi WoS .
ra do va ci ti ra nih
na WoS pri mi lo je sa mo je dan ci tat, dok je na Sco pus
ci ti-ra no 81% ra do va, a na GS
ci ti-ran rad (se dam pu ta), auto ra ,,Rak D”, ob ja vljen je 1989. go di ne.Na GS
ci ti ra nih
ori gi nal ni
?lan ci, dok
pro ce nat
ci ti ra nih ori gi nal nih
na u? nih ra do va
WoS 57% i Sco pus
Naj ve ?i broj
ci ti ra nih
ob ja vljen
po sled njoj
de ce ni ji
pr-voj de ce ni ji 21. ve ka. Naj sta ri ji rad, ko ji je ci ti ran u sve tri ba-ze, po ti ?e iz 1957. go di ne (“KU LJA CA B. Osvrt na raz voj zub-ne me di ci ne. STOM GLAS S, 1957”). Sa mo 15–20% ci ti ra ne li-te ra tu re
ob ja vlje ni
go di ne.Od
ukup nog bro ja
do bi je nih
ra do vi-ma sa grup nim autor stvom (Ta be la 4).Na WoS i Sco pus
ci ti ra nost
do stup na
ali se u ta be li 5 vi di da je 78% ukup nog bro ja ci ta ta u ba zi Wo S
do-bi je no po sle 2008. go di ne, dok je na Sco pus u istom pe ri o du do-bi je no
do bi je nih
2002. go di ne
ci ti ra ju ?ih
ori gi nal ni
pre gled ni
ra do vi, a
6% ra do vi
s kon gre sa
i uvod ne re ?i
Naj ma nje
pri lo ga,
sa op ?te nja, pi sa ma,
po gla-vlja i pri ka za knji ga, i to na GS. Ka da je re? o je zi ku, 41% ci ti ra-ju ?ih
ob ja vlje no je
en gle skom, 35%
ob ja vlje no
dvo je zi? no. GS je, u od no su na WoS i Sco pus, dao
ci ta ta iz
iz vo ra ko ji
en gle skom je zi-ku: 42% je bi lo na srp skom i 5% na ki ne skom je zi ku (Ta be la 7).Ta? nost
pro na ?e nih
Sco-pus 89%, a GS 65%. Na WoS
?a so pi sa
ob ja vlje-ne u SGS, na Sco pus ih je 39, dok ih na GS ima 46. Od ukup-nog
bro ja ci ta ta
(85) 36% je iz ?a so pi sa ,,Srp ski ar hiv za ce lo kup no
le kar stvo”
,,Voj no sa ni-tet skog
pre gle da”
(Voj no sa ni tet Pregl)
?a so pi sa
Col-le gi um
An tro po lo gi cum i Ac ta
Ve te ri na ria
Be o grad.
Pre o sta-lih
re fe rent nih
?a so pi sa
im pakt fak to rom.
sto ma to lo gi je
me di ci ne
ci ti ra ju ?ih
?a so pi sa,
hi rur-gi je,
an tro po lo gi je, tok si ko lo gi je,
ma te ri ja li ma,
ge ri ja-tri je,
oto ri no la rin go lo gi je
(pre ma JCR
ka te go ri ja ma). Od
ci-ti ra ju ?ih auto ra 53,6% je iz Sr bi je, a 15,3% iz Sje di nje nih Ame-ri? kih
Dr ?a va. Sle de
Hr vat ske, ?kot ske,
Pa ki-sta na,
Taj va na,
Austra li je.
ci ti ra ju ?ih
auto ra pri pa da
in sti tu ci ja ma
uni ver zi te ta
u Be o gra du
Na Sco pus naj ve ?i
ci ta ta po ti ?e
Srp Arh Ce lok Lek (31%); sle-de Voj no sa ni tet
Pregl (6%), Int J Oral Max Surg (5%), Ac ta
Ve te-ri na ria
Be o grad i Ar chi ve
On co logy (4%). Sco pus
ob u hva ta sve
?a so pi se re fe ri sa ne
re gi o nal nih na slo va
in dek si ra ni
GS pak 36% ci ta-ta do la zi iz SGS, 17% iz Srp Arh Ce lok Lek, Voj no sa ni tet
Pregl i Ac ta
Sto ma to lo gi ca
Na is si (5%).Ana li zom
di stri bu ci je
je din stve nih
za jed ni? kih
ci ta ta sve
tri ba ze (Gra fi kon 1) uo?e no je da je od 249 do bi je nih ci ta ta sa mo 15%
pro na ?e no
pre kla pa nje
iz me ?u WoS i Sco pus (70%), dok se Sco pus i GS, kao i WoS i GS
pre kla-pa ju
od no sno 17%
slu ?a je va.
Zna ?aj na
raz li ka u
pro cen tu
je din stve nih
ba za ma, gde
na GS 58% ?i-ne
je din stve ni
Sco pus i WoS ima ju 6%, od no sno 4%.Uo?e no
pre kla pa nje
GS i SCIn dek sa – od 117 ra-do va
ci ti ra nih
GS, 95 (81%) je ci ti ra no i u dru goj ba zi. Pre-o sta li
re fe ri sa ni
SCIn dek su,
ci ti ra ni
u me ?u na rod nim
?a so pi si ma
bro je vi ma
do ma ?ih ?a-so pi sa ko ji jo? ni su une ti u ovu ba zu.DISKUSIJAU
pret hod nih
pre vas hod no
usred-sre ?e ni
utvr ?i va nje
do bi je nog
po kri ve-nost
WoS , Sco pus i GS,
za la ze ?i
ci ta ta. U
ovoj stu di ji,
ne ko li ko
ura ?e nih
po-sle 2007. go di ne [11, 22, 25], ni su upo re ?e ni sa mo bro je vi ci-ta ta,
pro u ?e na
pre kla pa nja
obe le? ja
je-din stve nih
ba za.Re zul ta ti
do bi je ni
se lek tiv nom
ob u hva ta
sa mo na u? ne
?a so pi se
fak to rom
uti caj no sti,
po kri ve-nost Sco pus i GS
pre va zi la zi
gra ni ce,
uklju ?u ju ?i
?a so pi sa
re gi o nal nog
lo kal nog
pre kla pa-nja ovih ba za na pri me ru ci ta ta SGS je 15%, ?to po tvr ?u je za-klju? ke
pret hod nih
po ka za le
pre kla-pa nja
za vi sno sti
is-tra ?i va nja,
pro na-?e nih
[21].Upo re ?i va njem
po da ta ka
pri ku plje nih
Sco pus i WoS usta no vlje no
zna ?aj no
pre kla pa nje
pre va zi la zi gor nju
o?e ki va nu
uklju ?u je
de vet ci ta ta
di rekt no
obim ni-ju
po kri ve nost
Ko ri ??e nje
Sco pus uz ba zu Wo S
zna ?aj no
po ve ?a nje
?a so pi sa
?to po tvr ?u ju
pro na ?e ni za jed ni? ki
ko ji po ve ?a va ju ci ti ra nost SGS za 24% u od no su na ci ta te sa mo sa WoS
(sa 85 na 105 ci ta ta). To zna ?i da bi ko ri ??e njem sa mo ba ze Wo S
?e tvr ti na
re le vant nih ci ta ta
pro na ?e nih i
i na Sco pus bi la
pro pu ?te na,
ko ri ??e nja
Sco pus pro-ma ?e nih
Broj je din stve nih
pro na ?e nih na Sco pus
WoS : 20 (19%) u po re ?e nju sa 11 (10,5%). Iako se Sco pus
iz gra ?u je
kao di rekt ni kon ku rent
WoS, s ja snom te ?njom da ob u hva ti sve za pi se sa
je din stve ni ci ta ti
WoS ko ji se ne po ja vlju ju u ba zi Sco pus
ne do sled no sti
(npr. de li mi? no
in dek si ra nje
sa dr ?a ja ?a so pi sa
ili ne pot pu na
li sta re-fe ren ci), ?i ja je pre ci znost u ovom ra du pro ce nje na na 89%. Je-din stve ni
me ?u na rod nih
na ci o-nal nih
?a so pi sa
ko ji ni su
in dek si ra ni
WoS . Osim to ga, u vre me
pre tra ?i va nja
je din stve nih
Sco pus po-ti cao je iz ra do va ko ji jo? ni su bi li une ti u ba zu WoS,
is ti ?e kva li tet
a?ur ni jeg
211Stomatolo?ki glasnik Srbije. ):201-211Ka da
ti pu ci ti ra ju ?eg
do ku men ta,
pro na ?e nih
ori gi nal ni
na u? ni ?lan ci. Dok je u ne kim stu di ja ma u ba zi Sco pus
mno go vi ?e
sa op ?te nih
kon gre si ma
is tra ?i va-nju te raz li ke ni su uo?e
u obe ba ze ci ta ti iz ra do va s kon gre sa ?i ne
do bi je nih ci ta ta.
Bu du ?i da
78% ci ta ta SGS
ostva re nih
WoS i 68% ci ta ta na Sco pus iz po sled nje tri go di ne,
po ve ?a ne sto pe
ci ti ra no sti
je uklju ?i va nje ?a so pi sa ,,Srp ski
ce lo kup no le kar stvo” i
,,Voj no sa ni tet ski pre gled”
pro ?i re nu
li stu 2008.
Me ?u tim,
de talj-nom
ana li zom
po da ta ka
utvr ?e no
tre ?i na ostva re nih ci ta ta
?a so pi sa,
ob ja vlje nih
re le vant nim me ?u na rod nim
pu bli-ka ci ja ma.
?i nje ni ca
di rekt no
pro duk-tiv nost
tro go di ?njem
pe ri o du.Ka ko bi se do bi la ?to pre ci zni ja pro ce na u?in ka SGS na osno-vu
ci ta ta, tre ba lo
uklju ?i ti re zul ta te
WoS i Sco pus, jer su ove dve
re la tiv no
pre kla pa nja,
pre kom ple men tar ne
dru goj.Po re ?e njem
pro na ?e nih
ot kri va ju
ko mer ci jal ne
do bi je no
je din stve nih
ci ta ta (144), ?to je u skla du s re zul ta ti ma pret hod nih stu di ja [11, 16, 20, 21]. Iako se o?e ku je da GS
pri ka zu je
ne-tra di ci o nal nih
elek tron ski
do stup nih
do ku me na ta,
su ma gi star ske te ze,
dok tor ske
di ser ta ci je,
po gla vlja
iz knji ga,
ne re cen zi ra ne
in ter net
stra ni ce
ne znat nih 0,7%
GS po ti ?e iz knji ga, dok su svi osta li je din stve ni ci-ta ti SGS u okvi ru ove ba ze iz ra do va ob ja vlje nih u na u? nim ?a-so pi si ma,
pre vas hod no
re gi o nal nih.
Bu du ?i da
re no mi ra-ni
iz da va ?i
El se vi er)
ustu pi li
kom pa-ni ji
zna ?aj ni
re le vant nih
re cen zi ra nih ?a so pi sa
pro pu ?te ni
za klju ?i ti da
prak ti? no
ko ri sti ti
GS uz ba ze WoS
i Sco pus pri-li kom
ci ti ra no sti
vi so ko kva li tet nim
re cen zi ra-nim
?a so pi si ma.
?i nje ni ce
pri mlje ni
me-?u na rod no
pri zna tih
?a so pi sa
pre sud ni
po ve ?a nje
vi dlji vo-sti
,,ma lih”
?a so pi sa,
vi dlji vost i
po stig nut
glo bal nom
po slu ?i ti
re le van tan
po da ci-ma
ci ti ra no sti
pro na la ?e nju
is klju-?i vo na elek tron ski do stup ne ce le tek sto ve, kao i u dru gim stu-di ja ma
ob ja vlje nih po sle
kon ver zi je
sta ri jih
ma te ri ja la
u di gi tal ni
nji ho vog
po sta vlja nja
in ter net
re tro spek-tiv no
po ve ?a va ti
GS ba za i broj do bi je nih ci ta ta. Osim to-ga,
po sto ja nja
in sti tu ci-o nal nih
re po zi to ri ju ma ili
in ter net
stra ni ca
omo gu ?en
slo bo dan
pri stup di ser ta ci ja ma,
knji ga ma,
iz-ve ?ta ji ma
tre nut no
pre po zna je
kroz pu ne
tek sto ve
do stup ni
na ci o nal nog ci tat nog
SCIn dek sa
na ci o nal nog
re po zi to ri ju ma
?to ob ja ?nja va
?i nje ni cu
je din stve nih
ostva re nih
pe ri o da. Bu du ?i
je din stve nih
me ?u-na rod nih
?a so pi sa,
re fe ri sa ni
SCIn dek su, uo?en
pre kla pa nja
iz vo ra.Za
WoS i Sco pus,
eks klu ziv no
po kri-va ju sa mo
an glo fo ne iz vo re,
zna ?aj no bo lju
po kri ve nost ra do va ob ja vlje nih
na dru gim
je zi ci ma,
po seb no na
srp skom ili dvo je zi? no (srp ski/en gle ski)
(67%). Za ni mlji vo
ostva-re nih
ob ja vlje nih
na ki ne skom
je zi ku, ko-ji
ko mu ni ka ci je
lo kal nih
ob u hva ta,
GS mo ?e bi ti po-seb no
re le van tan
obla sti ma
re zul ta ti
ne pre no se
is klju ?i vo
en gle skom
je zi ku.Re zul ta ti
po ka zu ju
GS pro na la zi 84 (80%) ci ta ta SGS vi-?e
WoS i Sco pus za jed no (105), ?to uka zu je na to da ko ri ??e nje sve tri ba ze uve ?a va broj ci ta ta SGS za 137% (sa 105 na
ci ta ta).
uklju ?i va nje
iz vo ?e-nje
nu ?no vo di ti
va lid ni joj
do pri no sa [29],
po treb no,
pa ?lji vo
is pi-ta ti
mo gu? no sti i
ogra ni ?e nja
ko ri ??e nog
re? o GS, neo p hod no je ima ti u vi du da je ova ba za i da lje do stup-na
(test-ver zi ja),
spo sob-no sti ma
pre po zna va nja
me ta po da ta ka
ujed na ?a va nja
pro na-?e nih
po go da ka
ci ti ra no sti.
ukla nja nja
du pli ka ta
iz do bi je nih
re zul ta ta
ko ri sni ke
is ku stvom u
ci tat nim
pro gra-ma Pu blish
na me nje nog
pri ka zi va nje
re zul-ta ta
is klju ?u je
du pli ka te,
olak ?a-va
pre po zna va nje.ZAKLJU?AKNa
Wo S , Sco-pus i GS,
za klju ?i ti
zna ?aj no
pre kla pa nje
do bi je nih
WoS i Sco pus (70%), dok je raz li ka u bro ju
re zul tat
raz li ?i tih
po kri ve no sti
Sco pus pru ?a
sve o bu hvat ni ju
po kri ve nost
ne za men ljiv
po da ta ka
ci ti ra no sti
naj pre sti ?ni-jim
pu bli ka ci ja ma.
pre kla pa nja
ci ta ta do bi je nih
kom ple men tar ne
GS (15%). Ve li-ki
broj je din stve nih
ci ta ta GS
ob ja vlje nih u
?a so pi si ma
uti caj no sti
pre vas hod no
re gi o nal-nog
slo bod nom
pri stu pu,
GS se ni u ko m slu ?a ju ne
sma tra ti
ade kvat nom
ko mer ci jal ne
ba-ze Wo S
i Sco pus. Ogra ni ?en sa mo na iz vo re ko ji su u slo bod-nom
pri stu pu
iz da va ?i
sa gla snost,
GS pru ?a is-crp ne
ci ti ra no sti
?a so pi si ma
ma nje uti caj no sti,
iz o sta vlja
vi so ko u ti caj nih ?a so pi sa
re no mi ra nih
iz da va ?a
po kri ve ni
i Sco pus.Re zul ta ti
zna ?aj ni
bi bli o graf sko
pre tra ?i va nje
li te ra tu re,
naj pri klad ni jeg
pri ku plja nje
pre ci zni jih
po da ta ka
o ci ti ra no sti
ostva re nog
glo bal nom dru ?tvu.
raz me ra,
re zul ta ti
is tra ?i va nja
do pri ne ti
stva ra nju
i ve li ?i ni
po sto je ?ih
ci tat nih
po da ta ka.
ne do-volj ni
do no ?e nje
op ?te va ?e ?ih
za klju ?a ka,
is pi ta nih
sve o bu hvat-nu sli ku i bu de za me na za dru ga dva iz vo ra. Ka ko bi se pri ku-pi li
pot pu ni ji
po sto je ?im
ci ta ti ma,
neo p hod no
ras po lo ?i va
iz vo ra.Po ve ?a nje
ci ti ra no sti
di rekt no
uslo vi lo
uklju ?i va nje
?a so pi sa,
ko ri sti ima li
aka dem ske
za jed ni ce.
CitationsCitations3ReferencesReferences31DESCRIPTION: The emergence of academic search engines (Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search essentially) has revived and increased the interest in the size of the academic web, since their aspiration is to index the entirety of current academic knowledge. The search engine functionality and human search patterns lead us to believe, sometimes, that what you see in the search engine's results page is all that really exists. And, even when this is not true, we wonder which information is missing and why. The main objective of this working paper is to calculate the size of Google Scholar at present (May 2014). To do this, we present, apply and discuss up to 4 empirical methods: Khabsa & Giles's method, an estimate based on empirical data, and estimates based on direct queries and absurd queries. The results, despite providing disparate values, place the estimated size of Google Scholar in about 160 million documents. However, the fact that all methods show great inconsistencies, limitations and uncertainties, makes us wonder why Google does not simply provide this information to the scientific community if the company really knows this figure. Full-text · Working Paper · Jul 2014 · ScientometricsABSTRACT: This paper presents a bibliometric analysis of articles from the Republic of Serbia in the period
that are indexed in the Thomson Reuters SCI-EXPANDED database. The Republic of Serbia is a small country in Europe with about seven million citizens that became an independent country in 2006. Since 2006, Serbian science has achieved some recognition. Analysis included 14,293 articles with authors all from Serbia. Distribution of published articles in the Web of Science categories, journals, scientific-research institutions and researchers were analysed. Most cited independent research articles from Serbia were also analysed. The Y-index indicator for rating the productivity of researchers and institutions was used. This indicator takes into account the contribution of the researcher to the published results. The results showed that the productivity of articles from Serbia is significant compared to neighbouring Serbian countries, taking into account the number of researchers in these countries, their GDPs and the percentages of GDPs spent on research. Full-text · Article · Oct 2014 Data · Sep 2015 · Scientometrics Full-text · Article · Jan 2010
Full-text · Article · Jan 2007 · Korean journal of urology Full-text · Article · Apr 2013 Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.This publication is from a journal that may support self archiving.}