↓ Skip to main content

Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science

Overview of attention for article published in Biomedical Digital Libraries, June 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
9 tweeters
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
468 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
524 Mendeley
citeulike
36 CiteULike
connotea
10 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science
Published in
Biomedical Digital Libraries, June 2006
DOI 10.1186/1742-5581-3-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nisa Bakkalbasi, Kathleen Bauer, Janis Glover, Lei Wang

Abstract

Researchers turn to citation tracking to find the most influential articles for a particular topic and to see how often their own published papers are cited. For years researchers looking for this type of information had only one resource to consult: the Web of Science from Thomson Scientific. In 2004 two competitors emerged--Scopus from Elsevier and Google Scholar from Google. The research reported here uses citation analysis in an observational study examining these three databases; comparing citation counts for articles from two disciplines (oncology and condensed matter physics) and two years (1993 and 2003) to test the hypothesis that the different scholarly publication coverage provided by the three search tools will lead to different citation counts from each.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 524 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 15 3%
United Kingdom 14 3%
Brazil 6 1%
Spain 6 1%
Mexico 5 <1%
Netherlands 4 <1%
Australia 4 <1%
Malaysia 4 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
Other 30 6%
Unknown 432 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 82 16%
Researcher 79 15%
Student > Master 60 11%
Librarian 56 11%
Student > Bachelor 36 7%
Other 155 30%
Unknown 56 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 87 17%
Computer Science 77 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 58 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 52 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 8%
Other 129 25%
Unknown 81 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,042,071
of 20,957,071 outputs
Outputs from Biomedical Digital Libraries
#1
of 12 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,698
of 205,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomedical Digital Libraries
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,957,071 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one scored the same or higher as 11 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 205,182 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them