CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9scientometrics and bibliometrics researchWeb visibility and informetricsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Three Commonly Utilized Scholarly Databases and a Social Network Site Provide Different, But Related, Metrics of Pharmacy Faculty Publication

Open access
Burghardt, Kyle J., Howlett, Bradley H., Khoury, Audrey S., Fern, Stephanie M., Burghardt, Paul R.·2020·Publications
DOI 10.3390/publications8020018
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Scholarly productivity is a critical component of pharmacy faculty effort and is used for promotion and tenure decisions. Several databases are available to measure scholarly productivity; however, comparisons amongst these databases are lacking for pharmacy faculty. The objective of this work was to compare scholarly metrics from three commonly utilized databases and a social networking site focused on data from research-intensive colleges of pharmacy and to identify factors associated with database differences. Scholarly metrics were obtained from Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate for faculty from research-intensive (Carnegie Rated R1, R2, or special focus) United States pharmacy schools with at least two million USD in funding from the National Institutes of Health. Metrics were compared and correlations were performed. Regression analyses were utilized to identify factors associated with database differences. Significant differences in scholarly metric values were observed between databases despite the high correlations, suggestive of systematic variation in database reporting. Time since first publication was the most common factor that was associated with database differences. Google Scholar tended to have higher metrics than all other databases, while Web of Science had lower metrics relative to other databases. Differences in reported metrics between databases are apparent, which may be attributable to the time since first publication and database coverage of pharmacy-specific journals. These differences should be considered by faculty, reviewers, and administrative staff when evaluating scholarly performance.

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 · 10.3390/publications8020018

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. O'Brien, K. ResearchGate. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2019, 107, 284-285. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Scopus. Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/ 0007/69451/0597-Scopus-Content-Coverage-Guide-US-LETTER-v4-HI-singles-no-ticks.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2020).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Burghardt, K. J., Howlett, B. H., Khoury, A. S., Fern, S. M., & Burghardt, P. R.
Affiliations
  • Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
Corresponding author
Burghardt, Kyle J.
ORCID
Venue
Publications
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-04-01
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
18
ISSN
2304-6775 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/publications8020018
OpenAlex
W3014596576
Cited by
9
References
39
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Publications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
research productivity, pharmacy faculty, research output metrics, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, social networking sites, database comparison, tenure and promotion, pharmacy schools, research-intensive institutions

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