PubMed captures more fine-grained bibliographic data on scientific commentary than Web of Science: a comparative analysis

Jian Du

6 citations0/0 files storedBMJ Health & Care Informatics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Publishing and Open Access Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Research commentaries have the potential for evidence appraisal in emphasising, correcting, shaping and disseminating scientific knowledge. OBJECTIVES: To identify the appropriate bibliographic source for capturing commentary information, this study compares comment data in PubMed and Web of Science (WoS) to assess their applicability in evidence appraisal. METHODS: Using COVID-19 as a case study, with over 27 k COVID-19 papers in PubMed as a baseline, we designed a comparative analysis for commented-commenting relations in two databases from the same dataset pool, making a fair and reliable comparison. We constructed comment networks for each database for network structural analysis and compared the characteristics of commentary materials and commented papers from various facets. RESULTS: For network comparison, PubMed surpasses WoS with more closed feedback loops, reaching a deeper six-level network compared with WoS' four levels, making PubMed well-suited for evidence appraisal through argument mining. PubMed excels in identifying specialised comments, displaying significantly lower author count (mean, 3.59) and page count (mean, 1.86) than WoS (authors, 4.31, 95% CI of difference of two means = [0.66, 0.79], p<0.001; pages, 2.80, 95% CI of difference of two means = [0.87, 1.01], p<0.001), attributed to PubMed's CICO comment identification algorithm. Commented papers in PubMed also demonstrate higher citations and stronger sentiments, especially significantly elevated disputed rates (PubMed, 24.54%; WoS, 18.8%; baseline, 8.3%; all p<0.0001). Additionally, commented papers in both sources exhibit superior network centrality metrics compared with WoS-only counterparts. CONCLUSION: Considering the impact and controversy of commented works, the accuracy of comments and the depth of network interactions, PubMed potentially serves as a valuable resource in evidence appraisal and detection of controversial issues compared with WoS.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

References

2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials 2007Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses 2008What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior 2009Comparisons of Citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for Articles Published in General Medical Journals 2019Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases 2021Misinformation in and about science 2009Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study 2015RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.