tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3944706285659960672.post6596020321934111267..comments2024-02-24T15:37:13.749+00:00Comments on Blog of the Isotopes: The REF is a rankerBlog of the Isotopeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09709830920524368020noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3944706285659960672.post-80328550194571412472013-04-22T15:26:14.607+01:002013-04-22T15:26:14.607+01:00I expect you are right that there is no real diffe...I expect you are right that there is no real difference across disciplines. My real concern is the cases where Scopus has either far fewer citations than the other sites, even to the extent of having none (papers 11 & 14). Occasionally, Scopus finds more than Google Scholar, such as in my paper #25. The tool is demonstrably flawed, but perhaps I should just rest easy that it is probably flawed in roughly the same way for everyone.Blog of the Isotopeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09709830920524368020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3944706285659960672.post-42693334355756005132013-04-22T15:20:04.315+01:002013-04-22T15:20:04.315+01:00What would be quite interesting to know is whether...What would be quite interesting to know is whether or not there is any significant difference within a given discipline. If Scopus typically returns fewer citations than Google Scholar, is this true across all of physics. It would be quite concerning if, for example, it misses more nuclear physics citations (per paper I guess) than condensed matter citations. My feeling is that it probably doesn't, but I'm not sure anyone has actually checked.To the left of centrehttp://totheleftofcentre.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3944706285659960672.post-43967509601463487142013-04-22T09:20:48.299+01:002013-04-22T09:20:48.299+01:00It does appear to be missing from the Scopus datab...It does appear to be missing from the Scopus database. I suppose it is in my (and the University's) interests for it to be fixed. If they put me forward for the REF, that is...<br /><br />#21 is a case of a paper missing from ISI, though the three other sources for citation count agree quite well in that case.Blog of the Isotopeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09709830920524368020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3944706285659960672.post-67184081163245347562013-04-22T09:00:42.597+01:002013-04-22T09:00:42.597+01:00Interesting, and a bit worrying about #14. It may ...Interesting, and a bit worrying about #14. It may be that Scopus's database has an error here. The ISI version messed up one of mine but I got them to fix the error. Maybe you should report this to Scopus ... and maybe we should all check our 4 on Scopus before the deadline.Richard Searhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15509509939252545231noreply@blogger.com