Webometric Thoughts

July 6, 2008

Scopus v. Web of Science

Filed under: Scopus,Web of Science — admin @ 4:30 pm

Whilst there have been numerous different papers that have compared the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, until recently I have had to trust in others’ opinions as I have not had access. In the last month, however, I have gained access to Scopus through starting an Open University course. Non-scientific early impression: Scopus is far better.

Scopus strikes me as much faster and more user-friendly than Web of Science, and the API takes its potential a step further. Just changing a few lines of the example code, and you can create a list of the most cited webometrics papers of all time, or the latest published webometrics papers. Web of Science will have to open up a lot more if it is going to keep its position as the number one citation database.

February 20, 2008

Researcher ID: A password nightmare!

Filed under: Citation analysis,ResearcherID,Web of Science — admin @ 7:33 pm

Whilst searching on ISI Web of Knowledge I came across ResearcherID. It basically assigns you a unique identifier to which you then add your publications, ‘to aid in solving the common problem of author misidentification’. It’s a good idea, but it has been executed badly. Even the relatively simple process of creating a password was badly worked.

These days it seems as though we all have a million different accounts, and as such we have a choice of either writing all our passwords down (stupid), using the same password everywhere (stupid), or creating our own system for establishing passwords (sensible). Unfortunately when web sites have stringent stipulations about the form of the passwords, our extremely sensible password allocation systems soon fall apart. Researcher ID has the most stupid password stipulations I have yet to come across:letters, numbers, length…and symbols!
Password Guidelines

Must be 8 or more characters (no spaces) and contain:
– at least 1 numeral: 0 – 9
– at least 1 alpha character, case-sensitive
– at least 1 symbol: ! @ # $ % ^ * ( ) ~ `{ } [ ] | \
Example: 1sun%moon

Idiots.

Additional annoyances include: rubbish search fields; and the fact it only adds records directly from ISI Web of Science, not ISI Proceedings. The site should also use the fact that researchers want to have their citations recognised, and rather than only showing the citations identified by WoS they could enable users to match up the results from cited reference searches.

Nonetheless I have created a basic page with some of my outputs. Although I doubt very much whether I will remember the password long enough to update the page.

Powered by WordPress