{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028670721112076455, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0069504778453518675, 'mean_word_length': 5.582857142857143, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Citation Analysis: Comparison of Web of Science®, Scopus™, SciFinder®, and Google Scholar

In recent years, numerous articles have compared the coverage, features, and citation analysis capabilities of Scopus™ and Google Scholar with Web of Science®, a Web-based version of Science Citation Index. This article goes a step further and compares the citation analysis potential of four databases: Web of Science, Scopus, SciFinder, and Google Scholar. Each database presents its own strengths and weaknesses, including methods of analysis, differences in coverage, and means of linking references. As an illustration, Web of Science provides coverage back to 1900. In contrast, Scopus only has completed citation information from 1996 onward, yet Scopus provides better coverage of clinical medicine and nursing than Web of Science. SciFinder has the strongest coverage of chemistry and the natural sciences, while Google Scholar has the capability to link citation information to individual references. Although Scopus and Web of Science provide comprehensive citation reports, all databases miss linking to some references included in other databases.