HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: fj.07-9492LSFv1 22/2/338    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Falagas, M. E. Articles by Pappas, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Falagas, M. E. Articles by Pappas, G.

Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses

Matthew E. Falagas^*,,1, Eleni I. Pitsouni^*, George A. Malietzis^* and Georgios Pappas

^* Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Athens, Greece;

Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; and

Institute of Continuing Medical Education of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece

¹ Correspondence: Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (AIBS), 9 Neapoleos St., 151 23 Marousi, Greece. E-mail: m.falagas{at}aibs.gr

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.

Key Words: citation analysis • open access • Medline • Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) • education • electronic databases

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Agarwal and D. B. Searls Literature mining in support of drug discovery Brief Bioinform, September 27, 2008; (2008) bbn035v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. E. Falagas, V. D. Kouranos, R. Arencibia-Jorge, and D. E. Karageorgopoulos Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor FASEB J, August 1, 2008; 22(8): 2623 - 2628. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]