Search

This study compared the results of data collected from a longitudinal query analysis of the MEDLINE database hosted on multiple platforms that include PubMed, EBSCOHost, Ovid, ProQuest, and Web of Science. The goal was to identify variations among the search results on the platforms after controlling for search query syntax. We devised twenty-nine cases of search queries comprised of five semantically equivalent queries per case to search against the five MEDLINE database platforms. We ran our queries monthly for a year and collected search result count data to observe changes. We found that search results varied considerably depending on MEDLINE platform. Reasons for variations were due to trends in scholarly publication such as publishing individual papers online first versus complete issues. Some other reasons were metadata differences in bibliographic records; differences in the levels of specificity of search fields provided by the platforms and large fluctuations in monthly search results based on the same query. Database integrity and currency issues were observed as each platform updated its MEDLINE data throughout the year. Specific biomedical bibliographic databases are used to inform clinical decision-making, create systematic reviews, and construct knowledge bases for clinical decision support systems. They serve as essential information retrieval and discovery tools to help identify and collect research data and are used in a broad range of fields and as the basis of multiple research designs. This study should help clinicians, researchers, librarians, informationists, and others understand how these platforms differ and inform future work in their standardization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite growing demand for practicable methods of research evaluation, the use of bibliometric indicators remains controversial. This paper examines performance assessment practice in Europe—first, identifying the most commonly used bibliometric methods and, second, identifying the actors who have defined wide-spread practices. The framework of this investigation is Abbott's theory of professions, and I argue that indicator-based research assessment constitutes a potential jurisdiction for both individual experts and expert organizations. This investigation was conducted using a search methodology that yielded 138 evaluation studies from 21 EU countries, covering the period 2005 to 2019. Structured content analysis revealed the following findings: (1) Bibliometric research assessment is most frequently performed in the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, Italy, and the United Kingdom. (2) The Web of Science (WoS) is the dominant database used for public research assessment in Europe. (3) Expert organizations invest in the improvement of WoS citation data, and set technical standards with regards to data quality. (4) Citation impact is most frequently assessed with reference to international scientific fields. (5) The WoS classification of science fields retained its function as a de facto reference standard for research performance assessment. A detailed comparison of assessment practices between five dedicated organizations and other individual bibliometric experts suggests that corporate ownership and limited access to the most widely used citation databases have had a restraining effect on the development and diffusion of professional bibliometric methods during this period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]