The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research
Abstract
Bibliometric analysis based on literature in the Web of Science (WOS) has become an increasingly popular method for visualizing the structure of scientific fields. Keywords Plus and Author Keywords are commonly selected as units of analysis, despite the limited research evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of Keywords Plus. This study was conceived to evaluate the efficacy of Keywords Plus as a parameter for capturing the content and scientific concepts presented in articles. Using scientific papers about patient adherence that were retrieved from WOS, a comparative assessment of Keywords Plus and Author Keywords was performed at the scientific field level and the document level, respectively. Our search yielded more Keywords Plus terms than Author Keywords, and the Keywords Plus terms were more broadly descriptive. Keywords Plus is as effective as Author Keywords in terms of bibliometric analysis investigating the knowledge structure of scientific fields, but it is less comprehensive in representing an article's content.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Adherence to Long-Term Therapies: Evidence for Action
De Geest, S., & Sabaté, E. (2003) · European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · doi:10.1016/s1474-5151(03)00091-4 · Cited by 6,272
Adherence to Long‐Term Therapies: Evidence for Action
Burkhart, P. V., & Sabaté, E. (2003) · Journal of Nursing Scholarship · doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2003.tb00001.x · Cited by 2,526
Li, L.-L., Ding, G., Feng, N., Wang, M.-H., & Ho, Y.-S. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-008-1939-5 · Cited by 299
Trends in research on global climate change: A Science Citation Index Expanded-based analysis
Li, J., Wang, M.-H., & Ho, Y.-S. (2011) · Global and Planetary Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.02.005 · Cited by 258
KeyWords Plus™—algorithmic derivative indexing
Garfield, E., & Sher, I. H. (1993) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199306)44:5<298::aid-asi5>3.0.co;2-a · Cited by 223
Assessment of world aerosol research trends by bibliometric analysis
Xie, S., Zhang, J., & Ho, Y.-S. (2008) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1928-0 · Cited by 198
Self-citationZhang, J., Xie, J., Hou, W., Tu, X., Xu, J. M., Song, F., Wang, Z., & Lu, Z. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034497 · Cited by 114
Self-citationComparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for Earth Sciences
Mikki, S. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0038-6 · Cited by 86
Bibliometric Analysis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research Trends
Huang, C.-P. (2009) · Journal of the Chinese Medical Association · doi:10.1016/s1726-4901(09)70036-x · Cited by 38
Cited by
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007 · Cited by 1,356
GALVEZ, C. (2018) · Transinformação · doi:10.1590/2318-08892018000300001 · Cited by 68
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, J., Yu, Q., Zheng, F., Long, C., Lu, Z., & Duan, Z.
- Venue
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-01-08
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 967-972
- ISSN
- 2330-1635 (ISSN-L)
- 2330-1643
- OpenAlex
- W1572181180
- Cited by
- 688
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 7.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/asi.23437
- The paper
- Zhang, J., Yu, Q., Zheng, F., Long, C., Lu, Z., & Duan, Z. (2016). Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23437
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
