Comparison of ISI web of knowledge, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar h-indices of Iranian nuclear medicine scientists

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

Nuclear Medicine Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: In the current study, we compared the h-indices of Web of Science (WOS), SCOPUS, and GS of the Iranian nuclear medicine scientists Methods: Full time members of two major nuclear medicine research centers of Iran with more than 5 year of experience (Nuclear Medicine Research Center of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, and Research Institute for Nuclear Medicine of Tehran University of Medical Sciences) were included for h-index evaluation. H-indices of SCOPUS, WOS and GS were retrieved using their specific websites. Correlations of h-indices with each other were evaluated using spearman correlation coefficient. Results: Overall 11 researchers were included in the study. SCOPUS, WOS, and GS provided somehow different h-indices for each researcher. Spearman's correlation coefficients between different h-indices were high: 0.834, 0.817, 0.857 between SCOPUS and WOS, SCOPUS and GS, and GS and WOS respectively. Rankings of researchers according to different database however, were acceptably identical. Conclusion: H-indices provided by SCOPUS, Web of Science WOS, and Google Scholar (GS) for Iranian nuclear medicine researchers can be used interchangeably. However these h-indices can be different according to which database is used. Setting up “ReasercherID” in WOS and “User profile” in GS, as well as giving regular feedback to SCOPUS managers can increase the accuracy of h-indices calculation.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Ascaso Puyuelo FJ. H-index in the evaluation of individual scientific output. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2010 Sep;85(9):310.

Abbas AM. Bounds and inequalities relating h-index, g-index, e-index and generalized impact factor: an improvement over existing models. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e33699.

Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 15;102(46):16569-72.

Franceschet M. A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics. 2010;83(1):243-58.

www.scopus.com.

www.scholar.google.com.

Ramin S, Sarraf Shirazi A. Comparison between Impact factor, SCImago journal rank indicator and Eigenfactor score of nuclear medicine journals. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur. 2012 Aug 27;15(2):132-6.

http://scholar.google.com/advanced_scholar_search?hl=en&as_sdt=0.

Miró O, Martín-Sánchez FJ. Impact factor, H-index and other variable to observe the relative importance of an investigator. Rev Clin Esp. 2012 Jan;212(1):48-9.

 De Groote SL, Raszewski R. Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: A case study of the h-index in nursing. Nurs Outlook. 2012 Jun 29.

Poynard T, Thabut D, Jabre P, Munteanu M, Ratziu V, Benhamou Y, Deckmyn O. Ranking hepatologists: which Hirsch's h-index to prevent the "e-crise de foi-e"? Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2011 May;35(5):375-86.

Jangjoo A, Forghani MN, Mehrabibahar M, Sadeghi R. Anaphylaxis reaction of a breast cancer patient to methylene blue during breast surgery with sentinel node mapping. Acta Oncol. 2010 Aug;49(6):877-8.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=17283367146458501584.