CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5,039scientometrics and bibliometrics researchLibrary Science and InformationMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Falagas, Matthew E., Pitsouni, Eleni I., Malietzis, George A., Pappas, Georgios·2008·The FASEB Journal
DOI 10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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. FASEB J. 22, 338–342 (2008)

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Vine R., 2006, Google Scholar, J. Med. Libr. Assoc., 94, 97
  2. http://www.charlestonco.com/review.cfm?id=225

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 1,001–1,018 of 1,018

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G.
Affiliations
  • Tufts University (US)
  • Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (GR)
  • Institute of Continuing Medical Education of Ioannina Ioannina Greece
ORCID
Venue
The FASEB Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-09-20
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
338-342
ISSN
  • 0892-6638 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-6860
DOI
10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf
OpenAlex
W2120109270
Cited by
5,039
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 605 · 2025: 725 · 2024: 643 · 2023: 587 · 2022: 506 · 2021: 404 · 2020: 286 · 2019: 234 · 2018: 216 · 2017: 153 · 2016: 127 · 2015: 162 · 2014: 101 · 2013: 98 · 2012: 60
FWCI
29.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • The FASEB Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, bibliographic database comparison, biomedical information retrieval, citation analysis, journal coverage, keyword search, online journal articles
MeSH terms
Humans, Science, Databases, Factual, Computational Biology, Internet, PubMed

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