J Korean Med Sci.  2013 Sep;28(9):1270-1275. 10.3346/jkms.2013.28.9.1270.

Multidisciplinary Bibliographic Databases

• Gasparyan
• Ayvazyan L
• Kitas GD

• KMID: 1793039
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2013.28.9.1270

Abstract

No abstract available.

MeSH Terms

*Databases, Bibliographic
Humans
Internet
MEDLINE
PubMed

Reference

1. Gasparyan AY. Bibliographic databases: some critical points. J Korean Med Sci. 2013; 28:799–800.

2. Garfield E. Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science. 1955; 122:108–111.

3. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Biomedical journal editing: elements of success. Croat Med J. 2011; 52:423–428.

4. http://thomsonreuters.com/content/science/pdf/Web_of_Knowledge_factsheet.pdf. accessed on 20 March 2013.

5. Marx W. Tracking historical papers and their citations. Eur Sci Ed. 2012; 38:35–37.

6. Brookes BC. Bradford's law and the bibliography of science. Nature. 1969; 224:953–956.

7. Marusić A, Sambunjak D, Marusić M. Journal quality and visibility: is there a way out of the scientific periphery? Prilozi. 2006; 27:151–161.

8. Testa J. The book selection process for the book citation index in web of science. accessed on 20 March 2013. Available at http://wokinfo.com/media/pdf/BKCI-SelectionEssay_web.pdf.

9. Janke RG. Current contents connect and PubMed: a comparison of content and currency. Health Info Libr J. 2002; 19:230–232.

10. Butkovich NJ, Smith HF, Hoffman CE. Database reviews and reports: a comparison of updating frequency between web of science and current contents connect. accessed on 20 March 2013. Available at http://www.istl.org/04-winter/databases.html.

11. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008; 22:338–342.

12. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2009; 302:1092–1096.

13. Bornmann L, Marx W, Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Diversity, value and limitations of the journal impact factor and alternative metrics. Rheumatol Int. 2012; 32:1861–1867.

14. Cecchino NJ. Google Scholar. J Med Libr Assoc. 2010; 98:320–321.

15. Weeks AD. Detecting plagiarism: Google could be the way forward. BMJ. 2006; 333:706.

16. Gehanno JF, Rollin L, Darmoni S. Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013; 13:7.

17. Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed Digit Libr. 2006; 3:7.

18. Sember M, Utrobicić A, Petrak J. Croatian Medical Journal citation score in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Croat Med J. 2010; 51:99–103.

19. Shultz M. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. J Med Libr Assoc. 2007; 95:442–445.

20. Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J. 2012; 53:386–389.

21. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Blackmore H, Kitas GD. Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatol Int. 2011; 31:1409–1417.

22. Kotzin S. Journal selection for Medline. accessed on 20 March 2013. Available at http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla71/papers/174e-Kotzin.pdf.

23. Pizer IH. Automation in the library. Hosp Prog. 1966; 47:65–68. 7072

24. Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J, Dorgan M, Ramos-Remus C. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: Medline alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials. 2000; 21:476–487.

25. Woods D, Trewheellar K. Medline and Embase complement each other in literature searches. BMJ. 1998; 316:1166.

26. Wilkins T, Gillies RA, Davies K. Embase versus Medline for family medicine searches: can Medline searches find the forest or a tree? Can Fam Physician. 2005; 51:848–849.

27. Suh CO, Oh SJ, Hong ST. Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors at the forefront of improving the quality and indexing chances of its member journals. J Korean Med Sci. 2013; 28:648–650.

28. Ramos-Remus C, Suarez-Almazor M, Dorgan M, Gomez-Vargas A, Russell AS. Performance of online biomedical databases in rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 1994; 21:1912–1921.