The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study
Open accessAbstract
Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar (GS) are prominent citation services with distinct indexing mechanisms. Comprehensive knowledge about the growth patterns of these two citation services is lacking. We analyzed the development of citation counts in WoS and GS for two classic articles and 56 articles from diverse research fields, making a distinction between retroactive growth (i.e., the relative difference between citation counts up to mid-2005 measured in mid-2005 and citation counts up to mid-2005 measured in April 2013) and actual growth (i.e., the relative difference between citation counts up to mid-2005 measured in April 2013 and citation counts up to April 2013 measured in April 2013). One of the classic articles was used for a citation-by-citation analysis. Results showed that GS has substantially grown in a retroactive manner (median of 170 % across articles), especially for articles that initially had low citations counts in GS as compared to WoS. Retroactive growth of WoS was small, with a median of 2 % across articles. Actual growth percentages were moderately higher for GS than for WoS (medians of 54 vs. 41 %). The citation-by-citation analysis showed that the percentage of citations being unique in WoS was lower for more recent citations (6.8 % for citations from 1995 and later vs. 41 % for citations from before 1995), whereas the opposite was noted for GS (57 vs. 33 %). It is concluded that, since its inception, GS has shown substantial expansion, and that the majority of recent works indexed in WoS are now also retrievable via GS. A discussion is provided on quantity versus quality of citations, threats for WoS, weaknesses of GS, and implications for literature research and research evaluation.
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
PROTEIN MEASUREMENT WITH THE FOLIN PHENOL REAGENT
Lowry, O., Rosebrough, N., Farr, A. L., & Randall, R. (1951) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1016/s0021-9258(19)52451-6 · Cited by 317,331
Bradford, M. M. (1976) · Analytical Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3 · Cited by 255,302
Cleavage of Structural Proteins during the Assembly of the Head of Bacteriophage T4
LAEMMLI, U. K. (1970) · Nature · doi:10.1038/227680a0 · Cited by 249,961
Multiple Range and Multiple F Tests
Duncan, D. B. (1955) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001478 · Cited by 23,217
The sequence of the human genome
Venter, J. C., Adams, M. D., Myers, E. W., Li, P. W., Mural, R. J., Sutton, G. G., Smith, H. O., Yandell, M., Evans, C. A., Holt, R. A., et al. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1058040 · Cited by 13,909
Immunochemical quantitation of antigens by single radial immunodiffusion
Mancini, G., Carbonara, A. O., & Heremans, J. F. (1965) · Immunochemistry · doi:10.1016/0019-2791(65)90004-2 · Cited by 9,139
Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf · Cited by 5,039
Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communication
Bandura, A. (2001) · Media Psychology · doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0303_03 · Cited by 3,386
The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor
Garfield, E. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90 · Cited by 2,770
Citation Indexes for Science: A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas
Garfield, E. (1955) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.122.3159.108 · Cited by 2,334
Cited by
The role of google scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching
Haddaway, N. R., Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138237 · Cited by 2,387
The Journal Coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A Comparative Analysis
Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5 · Cited by 2,342
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002 · Cited by 1,990
Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison
Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9 · Cited by 1,784
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
Metadata
- Authors
- de Winter, J. C. F., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D.
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2013-08-01
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1547-1565
- ISSN
- 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
- 1588-2861
- OpenAlex
- W1968470708
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 60
- FWCI
- 25.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2
- The paper
- de Winter, J. C. F., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2
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.