Mapping the aliran of the academic discipline of entrepreneurship: A ...

3.2.1.01 Initially I selected the Web of Science to be the database for the episteme based
upo n pr ior use and familiarity in my other pos t graduate studies. However a literature
review on ‘citation analysis’ and a comparison of results from another database Proquest
did lead to some questions during the research as to whether Web of Science was a suitable
database.
3.2.1.02 Harzing and van der Wal [2008] list a number of strengths and weaknesses of
Web of Science when comparing it to Google Scholar (GS) and h inde x by Hirisch and g
index by Egghe. They found t hat:
Overall, we would argue that for the field of management the various GS-based
citation metrics provides a more comprehensive picture of journal impact than the
ISI (Web of Science) JIF [p10].
On average, GS reports nearly 2.5 times as many citations as the ISI Web of
Science [p12].
The use of GS generally results in more comprehensive coverage in the area of
management and international business, which benefits academics publishing in
sources that are not (well) covered in ISI (Web of Science). Among these are
books, conference papers, non US journals and generally journals in the field of
strategy and international business [ p12].
3.2.1.03 A parallel search of another database, Proq uest using the same parameters as the
Web of Science search yielded 5,000 plus articles when compared to the 2,161 garnered
using Web of Science. On its website, Proq uest’s self description notes: ‘It features a
highly-respected, diversified mix of scholarly journals, trade publications, magazines, and
newspapers.’
3.2.1.04 Both Harzing and van der Wal’s [2008] criticisms of Web of Science and the
greater number of search results from Proquest, could have called into question my
selection of Web of Science when it could appear that Google Scholar or Proquest could
have had a greater accessibility to listings of relevant articles.
123