CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 211scientometrics and bibliometrics researchLibrary Science and InformationWeb visibility and informetrics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases

Open access
Gusenbauer, Michael·2022·Scientometrics
DOI 10.1007/s11192-022-04289-7PMC PMC9075928
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract This paper introduces a novel scientometrics method and applies it to estimate the subject coverages of many of the popular English-focused bibliographic databases in academia. The method uses query results as a common denominator to compare a wide variety of search engines, repositories, digital libraries, and other bibliographic databases. The method extends existing sampling-based approaches that analyze smaller sets of database coverages. The findings show the relative and absolute subject coverages of 56 databases—information that has often not been available before. Knowing the databases’ absolute subject coverage allows the selection of the most comprehensive databases for searches requiring high recall/sensitivity, particularly relevant in lookup or exploratory searches. Knowing the databases’ relative subject coverage allows the selection of specialized databases for searches requiring high precision/specificity, particularly relevant in systematic searches. The findings illustrate not only differences in the disciplinary coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science, but also of less frequently analyzed databases. For example, researchers might be surprised how Meta (discontinued), Embase, or Europe PMC are found to cover more records than PubMed in Medicine and other health subjects. These findings should encourage researchers to re-evaluate their go-to databases, also against newly introduced options. Searching with more comprehensive databases can improve finding, particularly when selecting the most fitting databases needs particular thought, such as in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This comparison can also help librarians and other information experts re-evaluate expensive database procurement strategies. Researchers without institutional access learn which open databases are likely most comprehensive in their disciplines.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11192-022-04289-7

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Absolute subject coverage of 56 databases, sorted from largest to smallest (based on single-attribution; abbreviations see last page of Table 2)
Fig. 1 Absolute subject coverage of 56 databases, sorted from largest to smallest (based on single-attribution; abbreviations see last page of Table 2)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Relative subject coverage of 56 databases, ranked from least to most specialized (based on single-attribution; abbreviations see last page of Table 2)
Fig. 2 Relative subject coverage of 56 databases, ranked from least to most specialized (based on single-attribution; abbreviations see last page of Table 2)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Comparison of absolute subject coverage between Scopus and WOS CC (based on single-attribution; %-values show coverage of Scopus versus WOC CC)
Fig. 3 Comparison of absolute subject coverage between Scopus and WOS CC (based on single-attribution; %-values show coverage of Scopus versus WOC CC)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Comparison of absolute subject coverage between Scopus and WOS CC (based on single-attribution; %-values show the coverage of Scopus versus Google Scholar; Social Sciences and Humanities subjects highlighted in red)
Fig. 4 Comparison of absolute subject coverage between Scopus and WOS CC (based on single-attribution; %-values show the coverage of Scopus versus Google Scholar; Social Sciences and Humanities subjects highlighted in red)CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Show all 58 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. arXiv. (2021). arXiv.org. Retrieved July 18, 2021, from https://arxiv.org/.
  2. Association for Computing Machinery. (2022). The ACM guide to computing literature. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://libraries.acm.org/digital-library/acm-guide-to-computing-literature.
  3. Clarivate Analytics. (2022e). Web of Science: Conference proceedings citation index. Retrieved January 17, 2022e, from https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/webofscience-cpci/.
  4. dblp computer science bibliography. (2022). What is dblp? Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://dblp.org/faq/What+is+dblp.html.
  5. DOAJ. (2022). About DOAJ. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://doaj.org/about/.
  6. Elsevier. (2021). ScienceDirect. Retrieved August 20, 2021, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/.
  7. Elsevier. (2022a). Scopus®: Expertly curated abstract & citation database. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus.
  8. Elsevier. (2022b). What are the most used Subject Area categories and classifications in Scopus? Retrieved January 18, 2022, from https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14882/supporthub/scopus/~/what-are-the-most-frequent-subject-area-categories-and-classifications-used-in/.
  9. Europe PMC. (2021). About Europe PMC. Retrieved August 10, 2021, from https://europepmc.org/About.
  10. Google Scholar. (2022). Stand on the shoulders of giants. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/about.html.
  11. IEEE. (2021). About IEEE Xplore. Retrieve August 16, 2021, from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplorehelp/overview-of-ieee-xplore/about-ieee-xplore.
  12. John Wiley & Sons. (2022). Wiley Online Library: 7.5 million articles from over 1,600 journals, at your fingertips. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/researchers.
  13. JSTOR. (2022). ABOUT JSTOR. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://about.jstor.org/.
  14. National Library of Medicine. (2022). PubMed Overview. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about/.
  15. OECD. (2021). Inflation (CPI) Indicator. Retrieved January 16, 2022, from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/inflation-cpi/indicator/english_eee82e6e-en.
  16. SAGE. (2022). Journals. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/journals.
  17. Springer Nature. (2022). SpringerLink. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://link.springer.com/.
  18. Taylor & Francis. (2022). Journal solutions. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://librarianresources.taylorandfrancis.com/product-info/journals/.
  19. Wolters Kluwer Health. (2022a). APA PsycInfo. Retrieved January 17, 2022a, from https://ospguides.ovid.com/OSPguides/psycdb.htm.
  20. Wolters Kluwer Health. (2022b). CAB Abstracts Database Guide. Retrieved January 17, 2022b, from https://ospguides.ovid.com/OSPguides/cabadb.htm.
  21. Wolters Kluwer Health. (2022c). Embase: Excerpta Medica Database Guide. Retrieved January 17, 2022c, from https://ospguides.ovid.com/OSPguides/embase.htm.
  22. Wolters Kluwer Health. (2022d). MEDLINE® 2021 Database Guide. Retrieved January 17, 2022d, from https://ospguides.ovid.com/OSPguides/medline.htm.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 211

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Gusenbauer, M.
Affiliations
Universität Innsbruck (AT)
Corresponding author
Gusenbauer, Michael
ORCID
Gusenbauer, Michael
Venue
Scientometrics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-05
Volume
127
Issue
5
Pages
2683-2745
ISSN
  • 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
  • 1588-2861
DOI
10.1007/s11192-022-04289-7
PMC
PMC9075928
OpenAlex
W4229045617
Cited by
211
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 70 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 3
FWCI
21.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientometrics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Library of the University of Innsbruck (University of Innsbruck) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of Innsbruck and Medical University of Innsbruck
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
Keywords
bibliographic databases, subject coverage, database comparison, search engine coverage, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Europe PMC, PubMed, database selection, systematic reviews, open access databases

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