Understanding Efficacy of Literature Retrieval on Robo-advisory in Finance Sector: Exploring Performance Metrics

Authors

  • Neha Gulati Assistant Professor University Business School Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
  • Payal Gupta Research Scholar University Business School Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48165/gmj.2023.18.2.5

Keywords:

Information Retrieval, Precision, Recall, Robo advisory, Systematic Literature Review (SLR)

Abstract

Objective: Aim is to evaluate and compare performance of Scopus  and Web of Science database in retrieving literature for Robo-advisory  in finance sector.  Methodology: Five systematic literature reviews and bibliometric  analysis on the theme Robo-advisory were selected. References of these  5 SLR were considered and a corpus of 137 most relevant documents  were identified. From titles of 137 documents, most commonly  used keywords were identified and search query “Robo-advi*” was  formulated. Precision, Recall and F1 measure were calculated after  executing the query on Scopus and Web of Science databases.  Results: Higher recall of 75.2% was exhibited for the query by Scopus  as compared to 34.31% by Web of Science. Thus, Scopus is more  effective in capturing relevant literature on the theme. The precision  of query executed on Scopus was 65.71% as compared to 61.98% in  Web of Science. Thus, implying that a large proportion of information  retrieved from Scopus is relevant to search query thereby indicating  a higher level of accuracy by Scopus. From the results of F1 score,  Scopus has a better balance between precision and recall. Thereby  concluding that Scopus is more effective in information retrieval as it  retrieves lesser number of irrelevant documents.  Contribution: It offers valuable insights into the effectiveness of  information retrieval from these databases on the theme under study.  Researchers can make more informed decisions about selecting  database for literature review and bibliometric analysis. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ahmadi, M., Sarabi, R. E., Orak, R. J., & Bahaadinbeigy, K. (2015). Information retrieval in telemedicine: A comparative study on bibliographic databases. Acta

Informatica Medica, 23(3), 172–176. https://doi. org/10.5455/aim.2015.23.172-176

Buckland, M., & Gey, F. (1994). The relationship between Recall and Precision. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199401)

:1<12::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-L

Darskuviene, V., & Lisauskiene, N. (2021). Linking the Robo-advisors Phenomenon and Behavioural Biases in Investment Management: An Interdisciplinary Literature Review and Research Agenda. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 12(2), 459–477. https://doi.org/10.15388/ omee.2021.12.65

Fahruri, A., Rusmanto, T., Warganegara, D. L., & Tjhin, V. U. (2024). Mapping the Research Landscape of Robo Advisor Adoption: A Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of System and Management Sciences, 14(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.33168/JSMS.2024.0103

Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217. https://doi.

org/10.1002/jrsm.1378

Manaf, S. M., Ismail, M. K. A., & Zakaria, S. (2023). Systematic Literature Review on Robo-Advisery Adoption towards Young People. Environment Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 8(SI15), 3–9. https:// doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v8isi15.5086

McSherry, F., & Najork, M. (2009). Computing Information Retrieval Performance Measures Efficiently in the Presence of Tied Scores. Advances in Information Retrieval., 11(3), 365–373. https://doi.

org/10.1163/156854109X446962

Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Pranckutė, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: the titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications, 9(12). https://doi. org/10.3390/publications9010012

Rico-Pérez, H., Arenas-Parra, M., & Quiroga-Garcia, R. (2022). Scientific Development of Robo-Advisor: A Bibliometric Analysis. Review of Economics and Finance, 20, 776–786. https://doi.org/10.55365/1923.

x2022.20.87

Ritchie, S. M., Banyas, K. M., & Sevin, C. (2019). A Comparison of selected bibliographic database search retrieval for agricultural information. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 2019(93). https://doi.org/10.29173/istl48

Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5113–5142. https://doi.

org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5

Visser, M., van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2021). Large scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, web of science, dimensions, crossref, and microsoft academic. Quantitative Science

Studies, 2(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1162/ qss_a_00112

Wagner, F. (2024). Determinants of conventional and digital investment advisory decisions: a systematic literature review. Financial Innovation, 10(1). https:// doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00538-7

Walters, W. H., Walters, W. H., & Walters, W. H. (2009). Google Scholar Search Performance: Comparative Recall and Precision. Libraries and the Academy, 9(1), 5–24. https:// doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.0.0034 For

Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, 123(1), 321–335. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8

Published

2024-03-30

How to Cite

Gulati, N., & Gupta, P. (2024). Understanding Efficacy of Literature Retrieval on Robo-advisory in Finance Sector: Exploring Performance Metrics . Gyan Management Journal, 18(2), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.48165/gmj.2023.18.2.5
https://acspublisher.com/journals/index.php/gmj/article/view/15354
acspublisher.com
CC-MAIN-2024-33
44921
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:G2QYAQO2SSPXT5OI3QEESVVR3Q5S7HIP
<urn:uuid:ec57f031-662e-41e7-b025-9ce2633cbeae>
2024-08-06T18:16:24Z
162.241.85.135
text/html
sha1:BAQBLYC4YFATOE5YG526NBABGSKCBSIC
<urn:uuid:a48fc51f-3e7f-4f42-97d1-a6946edca006>
https://acspublisher.com/journals/index.php/gmj/article/view/15354
response
<urn:uuid:11967497-84c5-4ff5-8b41-10342730b778>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-33
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-134
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/