Embedded Files
Appraisal of: "Gusenbauer, M. (2024). Beyond Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: An evaluation of the backward and forward citation coverage of 59 databases' citation indices. Research Synthesis Methods, 15(5), 802–817."
Appraisal of: "Gusenbauer, M. (2024). Beyond Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: An evaluation of the backward and forward citation coverage of 59 databases' citation indices. Research Synthesis Methods, 15(5), 802–817."
Reviewer(s):
Juilet Brown
Alan Lovell
MS Copilot
Full Reference:
Gusenbauer, M. (2024). Beyond Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: An evaluation of the backward and forward citation coverage of 59 databases' citation indices. Research Synthesis Methods, 15(5), 802–817. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1729.
Short description:
This study systematically evaluates the backward (BWC) and forward (FWC) citation coverage of 59 scholarly databases, including widely used platforms like Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science, as well as emerging and subject-specific databases such as Lens, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, and PubMed. Using a sample of 259 multidisciplinary journal articles, the author assessed each database's citation index for coverage, accuracy, and completeness.
Key findings show that Google Scholar leads in FWC coverage, though it lacks precision and download functionality. Lens emerges as a strong alternative due to its superior data export capabilities. For BWC searching, publisher databases like IEEE Xplore and ScienceDirect offer the most accurate citation data, while Web of Science Core Collection provides the best balance of coverage and accuracy among large databases. The study offers practical guidance for researchers conducting systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and bibliometric studies, emphasizing the importance of selecting appropriate citation indices.
Limitations stated by the author(s):
The study focused only on journal articles, excluding other document types like conference papers or dissertations.
Citation coverage variability across disciplines was not fully explored.
BWC accuracy was based on reference count matching, which may not reflect actual citation content.
Google Scholar’s citation data may include erroneous or manipulated citations, potentially inflating its FWC score.
The study did not analyze citation overlap between databases or the qualitative nature of citations.
Limitations stated by the reviewer(s):
The reliance on quantitative metrics may overlook nuanced differences in citation quality and relevance.
The study assumes Google Scholar as the benchmark for FWC without fully validating its citation integrity.
The exclusion of non-journal literature limits applicability for reviews involving gray literature.
The analysis does not account for user experience factors such as interface usability or search efficiency.
The findings may not generalize to disciplines with atypical citation practices or low journal coverage.
Study Type:
Quantitative Comparative Evaluation (Database Citation Index Analysis)
Related Chapters:
Tags:
Citation searching
Page updated
Report abuse