Emad is correct. Each company uses a different metric to calculate its citation score for individuals. Shah - some companies are more conservative than others. ISI, for instance, only includes journal citation in 'recognised' and established journals. Google Scholar is less conservative and includes citations from a wider range of less established journals - as well as other sources i.e. books, book chapters, theses, reports etc. Moaid - Mendely is now owned by Elsevier and only includes citations from its own journals. Scopus tends to sit somewhere between ISI and Google Scholar - but it is changing because of its now close links with Elsevier. I suppose a question to ask would be 'why are Scopus and Mendeley scores different, for individuals, when they should be drawing from the same database? I suspect that will change soon.
Emad is correct. Each company uses a different metric to calculate its citation score for individuals. Shah - some companies are more conservative than others. ISI, for instance, only includes journal citation in 'recognised' and established journals. Google Scholar is less conservative and includes citations from a wider range of less established journals - as well as other sources i.e. books, book chapters, theses, reports etc. Moaid - Mendely is now owned by Elsevier and only includes citations from its own journals. Scopus tends to sit somewhere between ISI and Google Scholar - but it is changing because of its now close links with Elsevier. I suppose a question to ask would be 'why are Scopus and Mendeley scores different, for individuals, when they should be drawing from the same database? I suspect that will change soon.
Emad and Dean gave the main point. It is the difference in database between companies. RG counts citation even from publication added manually by authors, even if these publications are not indexed in ISI or SCOPUS, while Mendely shows citation from ISI and SCOPUS indexed journals.
The difference of citations among sites (Mendeley, RG, Google scholar) depend upon several factors,
1. Indexing of the journal that publish your article, maybe indexing in some of sites and does not indexing in others.
2. The database of site.
3. The site maybe owned by an publisher. As an example, Mendeley is owned by Eliseveir, so the citations is appeared only by the papers that published in Elesveir.
4. The algorithms of each site different from other, such as RG self-citation is appearing in your profile, while only 50% of self-citations appear in Google scholar, regardless that this paper is added manually or automatically!
Thank you very much for very interesting responses. Still I wonder why e.g. Google Scholar appears to check RG for publications, but not for citations. I have many publications which I reported to RG and now they appear in Google Scholar. However when I compare the citations between Google Scholars and RG they are very different. I even could say that if I put both together (without those on both) I would have 2/3 more citations. Why cant Google Scholar not include the citations on RG (and visa versa), if they can take over publications?? The same, of course would also be for other databases, or maybe there is a chance for a database who brings together citations from all other databases.