CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3scientometrics and bibliometrics researchLibrary Science and InformationLibrary Science and Information Literacy

Identifying “best bets” for searching in chemical engineering: Comparing database content and performance for information retrieval

Badia, Giovanna·2018·Journal of Documentation
DOI 10.1108/jd-09-2016-0112
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: Performing efficient literature searches and subscribing to the most comprehensive databases for interdisciplinary fields can be challenging since the literature is typically indexed in numerous databases to different extents. Comparing databases will help information professionals make appropriate choices when teaching, literature searching, creating online subject guides, and deciding which databases to renew when faced with fiscal challenges. The purpose of this paper is to compare databases for searching the chemical engineering literature. Design/methodology/approach: This paper compares journal indexing and search recall across seven databases that cover the chemical engineering literature in order to determine which database and database pair provide the most comprehensive coverage in this area. It also summarizes published, database comparison methods to aid information professionals in undertaking their own comparative assessments. Findings: SciFinder, Scopus, and Web of Science, listed alphabetically, were the leading databases for searching the chemical engineering literature. SciFinder-Scopus and SciFinder-Web of Science were the top two database pairs. No single database or pair provided 100 percent complete coverage of the literature examined. Searching a second database increased the recall of results by an average of 17.6 percent. Practical implications: The findings are useful since they identify “best bets” for performing an efficient search of the chemical engineering literature. Information professionals can also use the methods discussed to compare databases for any discipline or search topic. Originality/value: This paper builds on the previous literature by using a dual approach to compare the coverage of the chemical engineering literature across multiple databases. To the author’s knowledge, comparing databases in the field of chemical engineering has not been reported in the literature thus far.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/jd-09-2016-0112

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Descriptions provided by DBs owners are spread across numerous resources, making it challenging to gather all relevant information and ensure its accuracy.

    “However, this way of obtaining information rarely is less time consuming, as the descriptions that are provided by DBs owners are spread across numerous resources, which makes it challenging to gather all relevant information and ensure its accuracy [27].”

    From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [27]

  • The most accurate evaluation of content coverage and quality of the DBs can only be achieved by performing a thorough large-scale analysis, which requires a huge effort, adequate competencies, and is extremely time-consuming.

    “In all cases, the most accurate evaluation of content coverage and quality of the DBs can only be achieved by performing a thorough large scale analysis, which requires a huge effort, adequate competencies, and is extremely time-consuming [27].”

    From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [27]

  • The additional information, including citation metrics, peer review details, open access information, and more, can be found at journals' profile pages, but it can only be viewed and collected by searching journals manually.

    “The additional information, including citation metrics, peer review details, open access information, and more, can be found at journals' profile pages, but it can only be viewed and collected by searching journals manually”

    From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [27]

  • Recall rates between databases may highly differ due to different coverage of relevant content.

    “In any case, it should be noted that the recall rates between DBs may highly differ due to the different coverage of relevant content [23,27,43,57].”

    From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [27]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Badia, G.
Affiliations
McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Badia, Giovanna
ORCID
Badia, Giovanna
Venue
Journal of Documentation
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2018-01-08
Volume
74
Issue
1
Pages
80-98
ISSN
0022-0418 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/jd-09-2016-0112
OpenAlex
W2765390333
Cited by
3
References
37
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
Journal of Documentation (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
Keywords
chemical engineering literature, database comparison, literature searching, search recall, journal indexing, SciFinder, Scopus, Web of Science, database coverage

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