Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia

Scientometrics

Volumn 98, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 1491-1504

  Bartol, Tomaz ^a   Budimir, Gordana ^b   Dekleva Smrekar, Doris ^a   Pusnik, Miro ^a   Juznic, Primoz ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

^b Institute of Information Sciences   (Slovenia)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Citation analysis; Research evaluation; Research fields; Research information systems; Research performance; Slovenia

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892863196     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1148-8     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Abrizah, A., Zainab, A. N., Kiran, K., & Raj, R. G. (2013). LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: A comparison between Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics, 94(2), 721-740.
2. Aksnes, D. W., Schneider, J. W., & Gunnarsson, M. (2012). Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods. Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 36-43.
3. Archambault, E., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Lariviere, V. (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 21062.
4. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?-A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257-271.
5. Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26-34.
6. Bartol, T., & Hocevar, M. (2005). The capital cities of the ten new European Union countries in selected bibliographic databases. Scientometrics, 65(2), 173-187.
7. Benoit, K., & Marsh, M. (2009). A relative impact ranking of political studies in Ireland. The Economic and Social Review, 40(3), 269-298.
8. Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Macro-indicators of citation impacts of six prolific countries: Incites data and the statistical significance of trends. PLoS One, 8(2), e56768.
9. Chirici, G. (2012). Assessing the scientific productivity of Italian forest researchers using the Web of Science, SCOPUS and SCIMAGO databases. iForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 5(3), 101-107.
10. Curk, L., Budimir, G., Seljak, T., & Gerkes, M. (2006). Linking the SICRIS-COBISS. SI-Web of Science systems. Organizacija znanja, 11(4), 230-235.
11. Demsar, F., & Juznic, P. (2013). Transparency of research policy and the role of librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. doi: 10. 1177/0961000613503002.
12. Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2012). Opinion paper: Thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-012-0898-z.
13. Haddow, G., & Genoni, P. (2009). Australian education journals: Quantitative and qualitative indicators. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 40(2), 88-104.
14. Harzing, A.-W. (2013). Document categories in the ISI web of knowledge: Misunderstanding the social sciences? Scientometrics, 94(1), 23-34.
15. Jacsó, P. (2009). Errors of omission and their implications for computing scientometric measures in evaluating the publishing productivity and impact of countries. Online Information Review, 33(2), 376-385.
16. Kronegger, L., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2011). On the dynamics of national scientific systems. Quality & Quantity, 45(5), 989-1015.
17. Lasda Bergman, E. M. (2012). Finding citations to social work literature: The relative benefits of using Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(6), 370-379.
18. Leydesdorff, L., de Moya-Anegón, F., & Guerrero-Bote, V. P. (2010). Journal maps on the basis of Scopus data: A comparison with the journal citation reports of the ISI. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 352-369.
19. Lopez-Illescas, C., de Moya Anegon, F., & Moed, H. F. (2009). Comparing bibliometric country-by-country rankings derived from the Web of Science and Scopus: The effect of poorly cited journals in oncology. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 244-256.
20. 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.
21. Peclin, S., Juznic, P., Blagus, R., Sajko Cizek, M., & Stare, J. (2012). Effects of international collaboration and status of journal on impact of papers. Scientometrics, 93(3), 937-948.
22. Perc, M. (2010). Growth and structure of Slovenia's scientific collaboration network. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 475-482.
23. Pumain, D., Kosmopoulos, C., & Dassa, M. (2010). JournalBase-A comparative international study of scientific journal databases in the social sciences and the humanities (SSH). Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography (article 484), doi: 10. 4000/cybergeo. 22862.
24. Tijssen, R. J. W. (2010). Discarding the "basic science/applied science" dichotomy: A knowledge utilization triangle classification system of research journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1842-1852.
25. Torres-Salinas, D., Lopez-Cózar, E., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2009). Ranking of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases: Web of Science versus Scopus. Scientometrics, 80(3), 761-774.
26. 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.
27. Wendt, K., Aksnes, D. W., Sivertsen, G., & Karlsson, S. (2012). Challenges in cross-national comparisons of R & D expenditure and publication output. In Proceedings of 17th international conference on science and technology indicators. Presented at the STI 2012, Montreal, Canada, September 5-8 (Vol. 2, pp. 826-834).
28. Zibareva, I., & Soloshenko, N. (2011). Russian scientific publications 2005-2009 in the science citation index, Scopus, and chemical abstracts databases. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 38(3), 212-223.