A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases
Aghaei Chadegani, Arezoo and Salehi, Hadi and Md Yunus, Melor and Farhadi, Hadi and Fooladi, Masood and Farhadi, Maryam and Ale Ebrahim, Nader (2013): A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases. Published in: Asian Social Science , Vol. 9, No. 5 (27. April 2013): pp. 18-26.
![[img]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uD3I4zft-2dHKRBow1v9osRLedApYaUE2-xLsRQUl5FWduSSfD0HjpjsWLPC4v89Qn_BFuJPTZ2rHyEb-WPJwThUxx0v5UmYXkc1mqMUw9P_BaWL5giMdrdlLcLuNsHS1YsWWxvdt65KCSTf4Ak8pNpNumNqllXw=s0-d) | PDF MPRA_paper_46898.pdf Download (672Kb) | Preview |
Abstract
Nowadays, the world’s scientific community has been publishing an enormous number of papers in different scientific fields. In such environment, it is essential to know which databases are equally efficient and objective for literature searches. It seems that two most extensive databases are Web of Science and Scopus. Besides searching the literature, these two databases used to rank journals in terms of their productivity and the total citations received to indicate the journals impact, prestige or influence. This article attempts to provide a comprehensive comparison of these databases to answer frequent questions which researchers ask, such as: How Web of Science and Scopus are different? In which aspects these two databases are similar? Or, if the researchers are forced to choose one of them, which one should they prefer? For answering these questions, these two databases will be compared based on their qualitative and quantitative characteristics.| Item Type: | MPRA Paper |
|---|---|
| Original Title: | A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases |
| English Title: | A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases |
| Language: | English |
| Keywords: | web of science, scopus, database, citations, provenance, coverage, searching, citation tracking, impact factor, indexing, h-index, researcher profile, researcher ID |
| Subjects: | I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I0 - General I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Insititutions I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Insititutions > I23 - Higher Education Research Institutions O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O10 - General Z - Other Special Topics > Z0 - General Z - Other Special Topics > Z0 - General > Z00 - General Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology > Z18 - Public Policy |
| Item ID: | 46898 |
| Depositing User: | Nader Ale Ebrahim |
| Date Deposited: | 11. May 2013 07:46 |
| Last Modified: | 11. May 2013 07:57 |
| References: | Abrizah, A., Zainab, A., Kiran, K., & Raj, R. (2012). LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: a comparison between Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics. Bakkalbassi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(7). Retrieved from http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/3/1/7. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? – A comparison of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257-271. Bar-Ilan, J. Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26-34. Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigen factor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314-316. Boyle, F., & Sherman, D. (2006). Scopus: The product and its development. The Serials Librarian, 49(3), 147-153. Burnham, J. F. (2006). Scopus database: a review. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(1). Chou, P. N. (2012). A Comparison Study of Impact Factor in Web of Science and Scopus Databases for Engineering Education and Educational Technology Journals. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 9, 187-194. Deis, L., & Goodman, D. (2005). Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus. The Charleston Advisor, 6(3). Retrieved from http://www.charlestonco.com/comp.cfm?id=43 Dess, H. M. (2006). Database reviews and reports: Scopus. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 45 (Winter). Retrieved from http://www.istl.org Egghe, L. (2006). An improvement of the h-index: the g-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(1), 8-9. Escalona Fernández, M. I., Lagar Barbosa, P., & Pulgarín Guerrero, A. (2010). Web of Science Vs. Scopus: un estudio cuantitativo en ingeniería química. Anales de Documentación, 13, 159-175. Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V. D., Arencibia-Jorge, R., & Karageorgopoulos, D. E. (2008). Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal, 22(8), 2623-2628. Fingerman, S. (2006). Web of Science and Scopus: Current features and capabilities. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 48(Fall). Retrieved from http://www.istl.org/06-fall/electronic2.html Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90-93. Gary, E., & Hodkinson, S. Z. (2008). Comparison of journal citation reports and Scopus impact factors for ecology and environmental sciences journals. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 54. Glanzel, W., Schlemmer, B., Schubert, A., & Thijs, B. (2006). Proceedings literature as additional data source for bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 68(3), 457-473. Guz, A. N., & Rushchitsky, J. J. (2009). Scopus: A system for the evaluation of scientific journals. International Applied Mechanics, 45(4), 351-362. Haddow, G., & Genoni, P. (2010). Citation analysis and peer ranking of Australian social science journals. Scientometrics, 85(2), 471-487. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572. Jacso, P. (2005). As we may search – Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9), 1537-1547. Kulkarni, A. V. Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparisons of citation in Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA, 302, 1092-1096. |
| URI: | http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/46898 |
All papers reproduced by permission. Reproduction and distribution subject to the approval of the copyright owners.
 | View Item |
A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases - Munich Personal RePEc Archive
No comments:
Post a Comment