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

By Matthew E. Falagas, E. Pitsouni, G. Malietzis, G. Pappas. The FASEB Journal, 2007

4,221 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Molecular Biology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2a5a64b5a740c8379ef2bd81f0c2d4e6ae66c1d8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems and Management

In Molecular Biology

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Review of empirical research on knowledge management practices and firm performance (2016, methodology): “com/online-tools/scopus) was the preferred tool to carry out the search because of its touted accuracy and excellent coverage of academic literature (Falagas et al., 2008).”
A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: a supply chain perspective (2018, background): “According to Falagas et al. (2008), Tukker (2015) and Pinho and Mendes (2017), Scopus is a respected bibliographic database that strongly assists researchers with existing literatures, especially with works published after 1995.”
A Systematic Literature Review of Bio, Green and Circular Economy Trends in Publications in the Field of Economics and Business Management (2018, neutral): “These limitations, however, did not hinder our research, which is based on recent years [27].”
Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? (2017, background): “…considered more discriminating about the quality of the material they include, Google Scholar harvests content from more varied sources and includes genres such as conference proceedings, books, and reports, that are not included in Web of Science or Scopus (e.g. Falagas et al., 2008; Mikki, 2009).”
Evaluating Journal Quality: Is the H-Index a Better Measure Than Impact Factors? (2011, background): “, 2008), and Google Scholar accesses more nonacademic citations than Thomson ISI (Falagas et al., 2008).”
The New Era of Virtual Reality Locomotion: A Systematic Literature Review of Techniques and a Proposed Typology (2017, background): “, Google Scholar, Web of Science) for the main search process due to its wider coverage of related journals, its flexible result-filtering capabilities and the consistent accuracy of its results [29,30].”