A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of science and scopus databases

Asian Social Science

Volumn 9, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 18-26

  Aghaei Chadegani, Arezoo ^a   Salehi, Hadi ^b   Md Yunus, Melor ^c   Farhadi, Hadi ^c   Fooladi, Masood ^a   Farhadi, Maryam ^a   Ale Ebrahim, Nader ^d  

^a ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

^b ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

^c UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Citation tracking; Citations; Coverage; Database; H index; Impact factor; Indexing; Provenance; Researcher ID; Researcher profile; Scopus; Searching; Web of science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876995338     PISSN: 19112017     EISSN: 19112025     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5539/ass.v9n5p18     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? - A comparison of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0216-y
4. Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2006.08.001
5. 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/september2005-bauer
6. Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigen factor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314-316.
7. Boyle, F., & Sherman, D. (2006). Scopus: The product and its development. The Serials Librarian, 49(3), 147-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J123v49n03_12
8. Burnham, J. F. (2006). Scopus database: a review. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-1
9. 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.
10. 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
11. Dess, H. M. (2006). Database reviews and reports: Scopus. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 45(Winter). Retrieved from http://www.istl.org
12. Egghe, L. (2006). An improvement of the h-index: the g-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(1), 8-9.
13. 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.
14. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1096/fj.08-107938
15. 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
16. Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90
17. 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.
18. Glanzel, W., Schlemmer, B., Schubert, A., & Thijs, B. (2006). Proceedings literature as additional data source for bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 68(3), 457-473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0124-y
19. Guz, A. N., & Rushchitsky, J. J. (2009). Scopus: A system for the evaluation of scientific journals. International Applied Mechanics, 45(4), 351-362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10778-009-0189-4
20. Haddow, G., & Genoni, P. (2010). Citation analysis and peer ranking of Australian social science journals. Scientometrics, 85(2), 471-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0198-4
21. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
22. 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.
23. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1307
24. Laguardia, C. (2005). E-views and reviews: Scopus vs. Web of Science. Library Journal, 15.
25. Levine-Clark, M., & Gil, E. L. (2009). A comparative citation analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship, 14(1), 32-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08963560802176348
26. Li, J., Burnham, J. F., Lemley, T., & Britton, R. M. (2010). Citation Analysis: Comparison of Web of Science, Scopus, SciFinder, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 7(3), 196-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2010.505518
27. Lopez-Illescas, C., Moya-Anegon, F., & Moed, H. F. (2008). Coverage and citation impact of oncological journals in the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 304-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.08.001
28. Meho, L. I., & Rogers, Y. (2008). Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1711-1726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20874
29. Meho, L. I., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2009). Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: A tale of two citation databases - Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2499-2508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21165
30. Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 265-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.01.002
31. Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). Data sources for performing citation analysis: an overview. Journal of Documentation, 64(2), 193-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220410810858010
32. Pislyakov, V. (2009). Comparing two thermometers: Impact factors of 20 leading economic journals ac-cording to Journal Citation Reports and Scopus. Scientometrics, 79(3), 541-550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2016-1
33. Quint, B. (2006). Elsevier's Scopus introduces citation tracker: challenge to Thomson ISI's Web of Science? Retrieved from http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/nbreader.asp?ArticleID=16004
34. Raj, R. G., & Zainab, Z. N. (2012). Relative measure index: a metric to measure quality. Scientometrics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0675-z
35. Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2009). A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics, 81(2), 587-600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-2178-0