Coverage and citation impact of oncological journals in the Web of Science and Scopus

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 304-316

  López Illescas, Carmen ^a   de Moya Anegón, Félix ^a   Moed, Henk F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Citation databases; Journal coverage; Medical oncology; Rankings; Scopus; Web of science

Indexed keywords

EID: 55649090539     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2008.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Bakkalbasi N., Bauer K., Glover J., and Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. BMC Biomedical Digital Libraries 3 (2006) 7. http://www.biodiglib.com/content/3/1/7 Retrieved March 25, 2008, from
2. Ball R., and Tunger D. Science indicators revisited-Science Citation Index versus SCOPUS. A citation comparison of both citation dababases. Information Services and Use 26 (2006) 293-301
3. Bar-Ilan J. Which h-index?-A comparison of WoS Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 74 2 (2008) 257-271
4. Bar-Ilan J., Levene M., and Lin A. Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics 1 (2007) 26-34
5. Bauer K., and Bakkalbasi N. An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine (2005). http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/september2005-bauer Retrieved March 28, 2008, from
6. Bergston, C. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News, 68, 5. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crlnews/backissues2007/may07/eigenf actor.cfm.
7. Bollen J., Rodríguez M.A., and Van de Sompel H. Journal status. Scientometrics 69 3 (2006) 669-687
8. Braun T., Glänzel W., and Schubert A. World flash on basic research-The newest version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact of 100 countries 1981-1985. Scientometrics 13 (1988) 181-188
9. Brin S., and Page L. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual search engine. WWW7/Computer Networks 30 1-7 (1998) 107-117
10. Burnham J.F. Scopus database: A review. Biomedical Digital Libraries 3 (2006) 1. http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/3/1/1 Retrieved March 28, 2008, from
11. Codina L. Scopus: el mayor navegador científico de la web. El Profesional de la Información 14 (2005) 44-49
12. Cheek J., Garnham B., and Quan J. What's in a number? Issues in providing evidence of impact and quality of research(ers). Qualitative Health Research 16 (2006) 423-435
13. Debackere K., and Glanzel W. Using a bibliometric approach to support research policy making: The case of the Flemish BOF-key. Scientometrics 59 2 (2004) 253-276
14. Deis L.F., and Goodman D. Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus. The Charleston Advisor 6 (2005). http://www.charlestonco.com/comp.cfm?id=43 Retrieved March 26, 2008, from
15. Dess H.M. Database reviews and reports, Scopus. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship (2006). http://www.istl.org/06-winter/databases4.html Retrieved March 28, 2008, from
16. Eigenfactor.org (2007). Eigenfactor.org ranking and mapping scientific knowledge. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.eigenfactor.org/.
17. Fagin R., Kumar R., and Sivakumar D. Comparing top k lists SIAM. Journal on Discrete Mathematics 17 1 (2003) 134-160
18. Fingerman S. Scopus: Profusion and confusion. Online (Medford) 29 2 (2005) 36-39
19. Fingerman, S. (2006). Web of Science and Scopus: Current features and capabilities. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, 48. Retrieved March 28, 2008, from http://www.istl.org/06-fall/electronic2.html.
20. Garfield E. Citation indexes for science new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122 3159 (1955) 108-111
21. Garfield E. Citation indexing. Its theory and application in science technology and humanities (1979), Wiley, New York
22. Gorraiz J., and Schlögl C. Comparison of two counting houses in the field of pharmacology and pharmacy. Proceedings of the international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics, Vol. 11 (2007) 854-855
23. JCR. Thomson Scientific. Journal Citation Reports (2007). http://scientific.thomson.com/products/JCR/ Retrieved March 28, 2008, from
24. Jacso P. As we may search-Comparison of major features of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science 89 9 (2005) 1537-1547
25. Jacso P. Evaluation of citation enhanced scholarly databases. Journal of Information Processing and Management 48 12 (2006) 763-774
26. LaGuardia C. E-views and reviews: Scopus vs. Web of Science. Library Journal.com (2005). Retrieved March 28, 2008 from http://www.libraryjournal.com/index.asp%3Flayout=articlePrint&articl eID=CA491154
27. López-Illescas C., Moya-Anegón F., and Moed H.F. The actual citation impact of European oncological research. European Journal of Cancer 44 2 (2008) 228-236
28. MacRoberts M.H., and MacRoberts B.R. Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics 36 3 (1996) 435-444
29. Martin B.R., and Irvine J. Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy 12 (1983) 61-90
30. Moed H.F. Citation analysis in research evaluation (2005), Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
31. Moed H.F., and van Leeuwen Th.N. Impact factors can mislead. Nature 381 (1996) 186
32. de Moya-Anegon F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z., Vargas-Quesada B., Corera-Álvarez E., Muñoz-Fernández F.J., González-Molina A., et al. Coverage analysis of Scopus: A journal metric approach. Scientometrics 73 1 (2007) 53-78
33. Neuhaus C., and Daniel H.D. Data sources for performing citation analysis: An overview. Journal of Documentation 64 2 (2008) 193-210
34. Norris M., and Oppenheim C. Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences' literature. Journal of Informetrics 1 (2007) 161-169
35. Notess G. Scholarly web searching: Google Scholar and Scirus. Online magazine 29 4 (2005). http://www.infotoday.com/Online/jul05/OnTheNet.shtml Retrieved March 30, 2008 from
36. Palacios-Huerta I., and Volij O. The measurement of intellectual influence. Econometrica 70 3 (2004) 963-977
37. Pinski G., and Narin F. Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics. Information Processing and Management 12 (1976) 297-312
38. Price D.J.D. Towards a model for science indicators. In: Elkana Y., Lederberg J., Merton R.K., Thackray A., and Zuckerman H. (Eds). Toward a metric of science: The advent of science indicators (1978), John Wiley, New York 69-95
39. SCImago (2007a). SJR Portal-SCImago Journal and Country Rank. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.scimagojr.com.
40. SCImago (2007b). Description of SCImago Journal Rank Indicator. Retrieved 3 July, 2008, from http://www.scimagojr.com/SCImagoJournalRank.pdf.
41. Scopus (2007a). Retrieved March 28, 2008 from http://www.info.Scopus.com/detail/what/.
42. Scopus (2007b). Scopus Content Coverage. Retrieved March 28, 2008, from http://www.info.Scopus.com/docs/content_coverage.pdf.
43. Seglen P.O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal 314 (1997) 498-502
44. Thomson Scientific (2007). Retrieved March 28, 2008 from http://scientific.thomson.com/products/WoS/.
45. Van Raan A.F.J. Measuring science. In: Moed H.F., Glänzel W., and Schmoch U. (Eds). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (2004), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands pp. 19-50
46. Visser M.S., and Moed H.F. Comparing Web of Science and Scopus on a paper-by paper-basis. Abstract submitted to the 10th international conference on science and technology indicators. Vienna, Austria, 17-20 September (2008)
47. Walter G., Bloch S., Hunt G., and Fisher K. Counting on citations: A flawed way to measure quality. Medical Journal of Australia 178 6 (2003) 280-281
48. Zitt M., Ramanana-Rahary A., and Bassecoulard E. Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics 63 (2005) 373-401