1 / 34

Scopus and I: confessions of a user

Scopus and I: confessions of a user. Tefko Saracevic, PhD School of Communication, Information and Library Studies Rutgers University tefko@scils.rutgers.edu http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~tefko. Full disclosure. I have no connection with Scopus

stew
Download Presentation

Scopus and I: confessions of a user

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Scopus and I:confessions of a user Tefko Saracevic, PhD School of Communication, Information and Library Studies Rutgers University tefko@scils.rutgers.edu http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~tefko

  2. Full disclosure • I have no connection with Scopus • But: I am on Scopus Advisory Board & as such have a free password • but I & you have Scopus access through Rutgers Library • Of two so far, I participated at one Scopus Advisory Board meeting (Budapest) and evaluated their product informally over phone conversations • I am not going to the next meeting – Bangkok • I gave an informal talk about using Scopus at 2006 ALA © Tefko Saracevic

  3. What you can’t find on Scopus Named after: Hamerkop, Scopus umbretta © Tefko Saracevic

  4. Overview • Elsevier effort to get into searching • & combining ScienceDirect & Scirus (web searching) • Massive effort & outlay; big marketing • development investment HUGE & undisclosed • Headed by Eefka Smit & a young Dutch team • global operations: • Hdq: Amsterdam; marketing: Amsterdam, London, NY; indexing: Philippines; computers: Dayton, Ohio • Unveiled in 2004 • new features unveiled constantly – innovative • e.g. mid 2005: added RefWorks; end 2005 Citation tracking: 2006 planed Author profiling & further analysis tools • Search engine licensed from Fast © Tefko Saracevic

  5. Coverage • Science & technology only, no humanities • includes social sciences (with library & information science), life sciences • Covers some 15,000 journals, 750 proceedings, patents • also strong in non-English & developing country sources • incorporates wall to wall Medline, Embase, Compendex, & many other databases • also web search via Scirus • Time covered: For most is 1996 - ; for others goes back (e.g. as Medline) • While having gaps coverage seems more comprehensive than any other single database © Tefko Saracevic

  6. What can you do? • Subjects search • with many capabilities to limit & modify, rank • Source search – journals, types of sources • Author search with many extensions • – e.g. as to citations to and from • Citation tracking • Integrated with getting full texts with library • Integrated with RefWorks, given library has it • Integrated web search © Tefko Saracevic

  7. What do you see? • At first: Lots of features laid out all at once • But, relatively clear interface laying out capabilities • Geared toward fast, intuitive learning & use • and indeed it is relatively easy to learn & use • Results displayed in LIFO order, but can be ranked © Tefko Saracevic

  8. Reviews • Comparing Scopus and Web of Science • 2005: http://www.charlestonco.com/comp.cfm?id=43 • 2006: http://www.charlestonco.com/comp.cfm?id=43 • critical of Scopus gaps in coverage, particularly before 1996 • but not clear why comparison of these two services • Scopus does many different things that WoS does not & vice versa • both have citation searching but Scopus has much more • Scopus subject searching is much more comprehensive, WoS citation searching is more comprehensive © Tefko Saracevic

  9. search options © Tefko Saracevic

  10. search selections © Tefko Saracevic

  11. But lets get going …. Live examples from http://www.scopus.com/ user: tsaracevic password: I am not telling or: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/ © Tefko Saracevic

  12. One of my uses of citation tracking • Presently, I am writing a comprehensive review about the notion of relevance in information science • for that I searched for some key authors • including, of course, a vanity search • then I saved each author in a list • then – well lets look © Tefko Saracevic

  13. My four saved lists © Tefko Saracevic

  14. then… • I selected and viewed the list “Mizzaro citations” to work on them further • selected them all • clicked on citation tracking • and voila! © Tefko Saracevic

  15. Selected them all for citation overview © Tefko Saracevic

  16. Interested in this one © Tefko Saracevic

  17. Follow-up on four Tombros NEW! © Tefko Saracevic

  18. Following a vanity but useful trail • Created a similar list of my own articles • Selected two on relevance • Who cited them? • Who cited them who cited me? • Discovered a number of previously unknown articles • Here we go: © Tefko Saracevic

  19. This one © Tefko Saracevic

  20. Relevance subject search • Selected 50+ articles on relevance • Created a list & saved in My lists • Did citation tracking • Followed up on highly cited articles • Had fun tracking those that cited them that cited them • Eventually got lost in the tracking maze – of course! © Tefko Saracevic

  21. © Tefko Saracevic

  22. Which ones cited most? © Tefko Saracevic

  23. Tracking a single article • Barry C.L., Schamber L.Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: A cross-situational comparison1998, Information Processing and Management, (2-3) 219-236 • Tracked citations in Scopus • And in Web of Science © Tefko Saracevic

  24. Cited 33 times in Scopus I followed up on the citations – cited even in: Evaluating research for use in practice: What criteria do specialist nurses use? Journal of Advanced Nursing 50 (3), pp. 235-243 © Tefko Saracevic

  25. and the winner is? • For Barry & Schamber 1998 article: • Scopus: 34 citations • Web of Science: 31 citations • Oh well … • Were they the same articles? Degree of overlap? • Overlap: 27 documents • Scopus had 7 that WoS did not • WoS had 4 that Scopus did not © Tefko Saracevic

  26. Editorial uses • I use citation tracking as editor of the journal Information Processing & Management: • find [good] referees – most important function for any editor • who did what in this area/topic, how cited • subject layout of the topic of the paper • tracking of author’s own work • self-plagiarism? © Tefko Saracevic

  27. Citation versus subject searching • Each follows a different path for retrieval • Studies show that each retrieves different documents • low overlap between what is retrieved • As a rule, when doing serious searching I do both • Citation searching/tracking also serves different purposes • mapping of an area/topic and author • also used fofr assessing impact © Tefko Saracevic

  28. What is not there but I would LOVE it • Elimination of self-citations • cannot do it in Web of Science either, but can in Dialog in a convoluted way • Graphical display of connections • add visualization, network maps • Longer years back • Web of Science also has limitation on years depending on subscription rate • going back from 1994 costs gazillion dollars – Rutgers does not have it © Tefko Saracevic

  29. Conclusions • Actually, I do not have any • But citation tracking beside being serious business is also fun! • So have fun! © Tefko Saracevic

  30. He was the biggest polymath ever – maybe he envisioned Scopus? © Tefko Saracevic

  31. images … © Tefko Saracevic

  32. images … © Tefko Saracevic

  33. and of course… © Tefko Saracevic

  34. thank you hvala ďakujem vám danke merci grazie gracias © Tefko Saracevic

More Related