CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20scientometrics and bibliometrics researchAcademic Writing and PublishingWeb visibility and informetrics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Do bibliometric findings differ between Medline, Google Scholar and Web of Science? Bibliometry of publications after oral presentation to the 2013 and 2014 French Society of Arthroscopy (SFA) Congresses

Open access
Villatte, Guillaume, Marcheix, Pierre-Sylvain, Antoni, Maxime, Devos, Patrick, Descamps, Stéphane, Boisgard, Stéphane, Erivan, Roger·2020·Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research
DOI 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.09.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Bibliometrics consists in quantitative and qualitative analysis of an individual's or group's communication (volume, visibility), and impacts research funding. There are a number of bibliometric data sources, functioning in different ways and liable to give rise to differing statistics. This point has not been investigated in relation to publication following presentation to a French congress. We therefore conducted a study comparing the main bibliometric instruments, aiming to assess: (1) publication rates following oral presentation to the 2013 and 2014 French Society of Arthroscopy (SFA) Congresses according to the database used, and (2) citation rates for these publications according to database. HYPOTHESIS: Publication and citation rates differ according to database. Material and method All 199 Abstracts of oral presentations to the 2013 and 2014 SFA Congresses were included. Based on author names and key-words, manual search was conducted in the Medline, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases. Publication characteristics (citation rate) were studied using the 3 databases and the French SIGAPS (Système d'Interrogation, de Gestion et d'Analyse des Publications Scientifiques: Scientific Publication Search, Management and Analysis System) website. RESULTS: Publication rates according to Medline and Google Scholar were the same (48.2%: 96 articles for 199 presentations), but significantly lower on Web of Science (44.7%: 89/199; p=0.002). Citation rates differed significantly (p<0.001) between sources, with Google Scholar listing a mean 1.5-3.4-fold more citations per article than the other 2 databases. Citation rates between the 3 databases correlated strongly (r=0.93). DISCUSSION: The example presented in this study illustrates the differences in bibliometrics found between different databases. There was a 4% difference (7/199 articles) in publication rates following oral presentation to an SFA Congress, and even greater differences in citation rates per article, with 1.5-3.4-fold more citations according to Google Scholar. Bibliometric studies need to acknowledge the database(s) being used, which should be as many as possible to enhance exhaustiveness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; descriptive epidemiologic study.

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 · 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.09.005

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • Google Scholar captures open-access journal publications and early-stage scholarly debates not yet indexed in WoSCC or Scopus.

    “this study further incorporates Google Scholar as an additional retrieval source, with the aim of capturing open-access (OA) journal publications and early-stage scholarly debates that may not yet be indexed in WoSCC or Scopus (Villatte et al., 2020).”

    From The Attention Mismatch: Mapping the Structural Academic Governance Deficit in the Age of Generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Villatte et al., 2020

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says Google Scholar includes articles in open-access journals and reports publications found there but not in Web of Science. It does not establish that Google Scholar captures early-stage scholarly debates or compare its coverage with Scopus. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Saab, 2019, Publication output of French orthopedic and trauma surgeons: quantitative and qualitative bibliometric analysis of their scientific production in orthopedics and other medical fields, Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 105, 1439, 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.09.018 · DOI
  2. Dartus, 2019, Bibliometric evaluation of orthopaedics and traumatology publications from France: 20-year trends (1998–2017) and international positioning, Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 105, 1425, 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.07.025 · DOI
  3. Erivan, 2019, Full-text publication rate of studies reported as 2013 SoFCOT meeting abstracts, Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 105, 1447, 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.09.022 · DOI
  4. Grant, 2018, Economic returns to medical research funding, BMJ Open, 8, e022131, 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022131 · DOI
  5. Ploug, 2018, Should all medical research be published? The moral responsibility of medical journal, J Med Ethics, 44, 690, 10.1136/medethics-2018-104785 · DOI
  6. Randelli, 2015, Repair versus shaving of partial-thickness articular-sided tears of the upper subscapularis tendon. A prospective randomized controlled trial, Joints, 3, 109, 10.11138/jts/2015.3.3.109 · DOI
  7. Rouleau, 2017, Measurement of combined glenoid and Hill–Sachs lesions in anterior shoulder instability, Shoulder Elbow, 9, 160, 10.1177/1758573216681208 · DOI
  8. Wein, 2019, Anteversion and length of the femoral tunnel in ACL reconstruction: in-vivo comparison between rigid and flexible instrumentation, J Exp Orthop, 6, 26, 10.1186/s40634-019-0198-0 · DOI
  9. Gusenbauer, 2019, Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases, Scientometrics, 118, 177, 10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Komagamine, 2018, Full-text publication rate of abstracts presented at the Japan Primary Care Association Annual Meetings (2010–2012): a retrospective observational study, BMJ Open, 8, e021585, 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021585 · DOI
  11. Scherer, 2007, Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, MR000005
  12. Al-Hourani, 2017, Five-year publication rate of podium presentations at SICOT Annual Conference: an observational study and new objective proposal of conference power, SICOT-J, 3, 36, 10.1051/sicotj/2017019 · DOI
  13. Kleine-Konig, 2014, Publication rate of abstracts presented at European Paediatric Orthopaedic Society Annual Meetings, 2006 to 2008, J Pediatr Orthop, 34, e33, 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000140 · DOI
  14. Schulte, 2012, Publication rate of abstracts presented at the Annual Congress of the German Society of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 132, 271, 10.1007/s00402-011-1398-y · DOI
  15. Boughebri, 2015, Results of 45 arthroscopic Bankart procedures: Does the ISIS remain a reliable prognostic assessment after 5 years?, Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 25, 709, 10.1007/s00590-014-1562-5 · DOI
  16. Guillo, 2013, Consensus in chronic ankle instability: aetiology, assessment, surgical indications and place for arthroscopy, Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 99, S411, 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.10.009 · DOI
  17. Maqdes, 2015, The intra- and inter-observer reliability of the CT-scan based X index to quantify glenoid bone loss in chronic anterior shoulder instability and its impact on decision making, Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 25, 699, 10.1007/s00590-014-1546-5 · DOI
  18. Wajsfisz, 2014, Surgical management of combined anterior or posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral corner tears: For what functional results?, Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 100, S379, 10.1016/j.otsr.2014.10.003 · DOI
  19. Eastman, 2003, Coverage, relevance, and ranking: the impact of query operators on Web search engine results, ACM Trans Inf Syst, 21, 383, 10.1145/944012.944015 · DOI
  20. Grigas, 2017, “Just Google It”- The Scope of Freely Available Information Sources for Doctoral Thesis Writing, Inf Res Int Electron J, 22
  21. Kesselman, 2005, Google Scholar™ and libraries: point/counterpoint, Ref Serv Rev, 33, 380, 10.1108/00907320510631535 · DOI
  22. Burright M. Google Scholar -- Science & Technology 2006. · DOI
  23. Jacsó, 2010, Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar, Online Inf Rev, 34, 175, 10.1108/14684521011024191 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Villatte, G., Marcheix, P.-S., Antoni, M., Devos, P., Descamps, S., Boisgard, S., & Erivan, R.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Limoges (FR)
  • Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg (FR)
  • Université de Lille (FR)
Corresponding author
Villatte, Guillaume
ORCID
Venue
Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-12
Volume
106
Issue
8
Pages
1469-1473
ISSN
1877-0568 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.otsr.2020.09.005
OpenAlex
W3096619224
Cited by
20
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Orthopaedics & Traumatology Surgery & Research (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • LillOA (Université de Lille (University Of Lille)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
Keywords
Google Scholar, Web of Science, MEDLINE, citation counts, publication rates, oral presentations, research visibility, research funding allocation
MeSH terms
Arthroscopy, Communication, Humans, Bibliometrics, Databases, Factual

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