Authors/Task Force Members: Michele Brignole* (Chairperson) (Italy), Angel Moya* (Co-chairperson) (Spain), Frederik J. de Lange (The Netherlands), Jean-Claude Deharo (France), Perry M. Elliott (UK), Alessandra Fanciulli (Austria), Artur Fedorowski (Sweden), Raffaello Furlan (Italy), Rose Anne Kenny (Ireland), Alfonso Mart ın (Spain), Vincent Probst (France), Matthew J. Reed (UK), Ciara P. Rice (Ireland), Richard Sutton (Monaco), Andrea Ungar (Italy), and J. Gert van Dijk (The Netherlands)

2018 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope

Traditionally, Web of Science and Scopus have been the two most widely used databases for bibliometric analyses. However, during the last few years some new scholarly databases, such as Dimensions, have come up. Several previous studies have compared different databases, either through a direct comparison of article coverage or by comparing the citations across the databases. This article aims to present a comparative analysis of the journal coverage of the three databases (Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions), with the objective to describe, understand and visualize the differences in them. The most recent master journal lists of the three databases is used for analysis. The results indicate that the databases have significantly different journal coverage, with the Web of Science being most selective and Dimensions being the most exhaustive. About 99.11% and 96.61% of the journals indexed in Web of Science are also indexed in Scopus and Dimensions, respectively. Scopus has 96.42% of its indexed journals also covered by Dimensions. Dimensions database has the most exhaustive journal coverage, with 82.22% more journals than Web of Science and 48.17% more journals than Scopus. This article also analysed the research outputs for 20 selected countries for the 2010–2018 period, as indexed in the three databases, and identified database-induced variations in research output volume, rank, global share and subject area composition for different countries. It is found that there are clearly visible variations in the research output from different countries in the three databases, along with differential coverage of different subject areas by the three databases. The analytical study provides an informative and practically useful picture of the journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions databases.

The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis

Traditionally, Web of Science and Scopus have been the two most widely used databases for bibliometric analyses. However, during the last few years some new scholarly databases, such as Dimensions, have come up. Several previous studies have compared different databases, either through a direct comparison of article coverage or by comparing the citations across the databases. This article attempts to compare the journal coverage of the three databases: Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions. The most recent master journal lists of the three databases have been used for the purpose of identifying the overlapping and unique journals covered in the databases. The results indicate that the databases have significantly different journal coverage, with the Web of Science being most selective and Dimensions being the most exhaustive. About 99.11% and 96.61% of the journals indexed in Web of Science are also indexed in Scopus and Dimensions, respectively. Scopus has 96.42% of its indexed journals also covered by Dimensions. Dimensions database has the most exhaustive coverage, with 82.22% more journals covered as compared to Web of Science and 48.17% more journals covered as compared to Scopus. We also analysed the research outputs for 20 highly productive countries for the 2010-2019 period, as indexed in the three databases, and identified database-induced variations in research output volume, rank and global share of different countries. In addition to variations in overall coverage of research output from different countries, the three databases appear to have differential coverage of different disciplines.

The Journal Coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A Comparative Analysis.

The enormous impact of artificial intelligence has been realized in transforming the fashion and apparel industry in the past decades However, the research in this domain is scattered and mainly f 

/pdf/a-detailed-review-of-artificial-intelligence-applied-in-the-51skw1ho62.pdf

A Detailed Review of Artificial Intelligence Applied in the Fashion and Apparel Industry

Search engine optimization (SEO) constitutes the set of methods designed to increase the visibility of, and the number of visits to, a web page by means of its ranking on the search engine results pages. Recently, SEO has also been applied to academic databases and search engines, in a trend that is in constant growth. This new approach, known as academic SEO (ASEO), has generated a field of study with considerable future growth potential due to the impact of open science. The study reported here forms part of this new field of analysis. The ranking of results is a key aspect in any information system since it determines the way in which these results are presented to the user. The aim of this study is to analyze and compare the relevance ranking algorithms employed by various academic platforms to identify the importance of citations received in their algorithms. Specifically, we analyze two search engines and two bibliographic databases: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic, on the one hand, and Web of Science and Scopus, on the other. A reverse engineering methodology is employed based on the statistical analysis of Spearman’s correlation coefficients. The results indicate that the ranking algorithms used by Google Scholar and Microsoft are the two that are most heavily influenced by citations received. Indeed, citation counts are clearly the main SEO factor in these academic search engines. An unexpected finding is that, at certain points in time, Web of Science (WoS) used citations received as a key ranking factor, despite the fact that WoS support documents claim this factor does not intervene.

Ranking by Relevance and Citation Counts, a Comparative Study: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, WoS and Scopus

Literature databases (i.e., PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) differ in terms of their coverage, focus, and the tool they provide. PubMed focuses mainly on life sciences and biomedical disciplines, whereas Scopus and Web of Science are multidisciplinary. The protocol described in the current study was used to search for publications from Jordanian authors in the years 2013-2017. In this protocol, how to use each database to conduct this type of search is explained in detail. A Scopus search resulted in the highest number of documents (11,444 documents), followed by a Web of Science search (10,943 documents). PubMed resulted in a smaller number of documents due to its narrower scope and coverage (4,363 documents). The results also show a yearly trend in: (1) the number of publications, (2) the disciplines that have the most publications, (3) the countries of collaboration, and (4) the number of open access publications. In contrast, PubMed has a sophisticated keyword optimization service (i.e., Medical Subject Heading, or MeSH), while both Scopus and Web of Science provide search analysis tools that can produce representative figures. Finally, the features of each database are explained in detail and several indices that can be extracted using the search results are provided. This study provides a base for using literature databases for bibliometric analysis.

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases.

OBJECTIVE. The impact of open access (OA) journals is still understudied in the field of radiology. In this study, we compared the measures of impact (e.g., CiteScore, citation count, SCImago Journ...

https://www.ajronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2214/AJR.19.21215

The Impact of Open Access Status on Journal Indexes of Radiology Journals

Background and Purpose Noncontrasted computed tomography (NCCT) is used as the initial neuroimaging test of choice for patients who present with new-onset neurological symptoms. An apparently hyperattenuated venous sinus may lead to the suspicion of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). Improved understanding of all factors that can affect attenuation of dural sinuses can guide triage of patients to or from further investigations of suspected CVST. The purpose of this retrospective study was to assess the effect of different factors including hematocrit (HCT), hemoglobin (Hb), age, BUN/Cr ratio (blood urea nitrogen-to-creatinine ratio), and gender on the attenuation of dural sinuses on brain NCCT. Methods A total of 1293 patients with neurological symptoms who presented to the emergency department were included in this study. For each patient, clinical assessment, laboratory investigations, and brain NCCT were reviewed. For each brain NCCT, the average attenuation of superior sagittal sinus and both right and left sigmoid sinuses was measured. Results Positive significant correlations were found between average attenuation of dural sinuses on one hand and each of age, Hb, and HCT on the other hand. No significant correlation was found between average attenuation and BUN/Cr ratio. Gender discrepancy was also significant as higher attenuation was found in men. Conclusion Age, gender, and Hb levels are the main factors that should be taken into account upon the assessment of dural sinuses on brain NCCT. The highest normal attenuation is predicted in an elderly polycythemic man and the lowest is predicted in a young anemic woman.

Factors Affecting Attenuation of Dural Sinuses on Noncontrasted Computed Tomography Scan

Previous reports stressed on the importance of international collaboration and open access (OA) publishing, as they increase the quality of the research and increase its benefits. In this study, we will assess Jordanian international research collaboration and OA publishing in the past 10 years. We performed a Scopus search for Jordanian publications in the years 2008–2017, where we extracted and calculated the total number of publications, publications in OA journals, publications with international collaborations. Moreover, we assessed the disciplines Jordanians usually publish in. During the 10-year interval, we found a total of 20,359 Jordan-affiliated publications indexed in Scopus. We found a dramatic increase in number of publications with international collaboration from 38% in 2008 reaching 53.3% in 2017, and an increase in OA publications from 7.3% of the total publications in 2008, reaching 18.7% of the total publications in 2017. Total number of Scopus indexed publications from Jordan has increased by 57.9% over the past 10 years. Although international collaboration and OA publications have dramatically increased in recent years, Jordanian researchers should focus more on international collaboration with developed countries and on self-archiving their publications.

International Collaboration and Openness in Jordanian Research Output: A 10-year Publications Feedback

In 2011, professional societies recommended the use of the representative name “Granulomatosis with polyangiitis GPA” followed by the parenthetical eponym “Wegener”, due to the ethical concerns that were raised on Wegener. We aim to study the change in using the eponym “Wegener” to using the representative name “GPA” in medical literature in the period from 2010 to 2017. We used Scopus database to search for articles or reviews that used the eponym “Wegener”, and those that used the representative name “GPA” during the years 2010–2017, using appropriate operators and limiting tools available. A total of 2613 publications used the eponym “Wegener” compared to 1443 publications included the phrase “GPA” during the years 2010–2017. We found a significant difference in number of publications that used the eponym alone in the years from 2010 to 2014 (p < 0.001), reaching only 11.8% of the total publications in 2014, with no significant difference in the subsequent years (i.e. 2014–2017). USA, UK, and US-based institutions published research using the eponym alone significantly more than Germany, France, and Japan. The use of the eponym only also varied among journals. Changing an eponym to a representative name would take around 4 years to adopt the new change.

Lna Malkawi

Papers

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases.

The Impact of Open Access Status on Journal Indexes of Radiology Journals

Factors Affecting Attenuation of Dural Sinuses on Noncontrasted Computed Tomography Scan

International Collaboration and Openness in Jordanian Research Output: A 10-year Publications Feedback

The change from an eponym to a representative name: Wegener to granulomatosis with polyangiitis