Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: a comparison between Web of Science and Scopus

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study compares the coverage, ranking, impact and subject categorization of Library and Information Science journals, specifically, 79 titles based on data from Web of Science (WoS) and 128 titles from Scopus. Comparisons were made based on prestige factor scores reported in 2010 Journal Citation Reports and SCImago Journal Rank 2010 and noting the change in ranking when the differences are calculated. The rank normalized impact factor and the Library of Congress Classification System were used to compare impact rankings and subject categorization. There was high degree of similarity in rank normalized impact factor of titles in both WoS and Scopus databases. The searches found 162 journals, with 45 journals appearing in both databases. The rankings obtained for normalized impact scores confirm higher impact scores for titles covered in Scopus because of its larger coverage of titles. There was mismatch of subject categorization among 34 journal titles in both databases and 22 of the titles were not classified under Z subject headings in the Library of Congress catalogue. The results revealed the changes in journal title rankings when normalized, and the categorization of some journal titles in these databases might be incorrect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amin, M., and Mabe, M. (2000). Impact factors: use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing, 1, 1–6. Retrieved 28 Sept 2011. http://www.elsevier.com/framework_editors/pdfs/Perspectives1.pdf.

  • Bergstrom, C. T. (2007). Eigenfactor: measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College and Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, H. K. (2007). Evaluating academic journals using impact factor and local citation score. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(3), 393–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Della Sala, S., & Grafman, J. (2009). Five-year impact factor. Cortex, 45(8), 911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dombrowski, T. (1988). Journal evaluation using Journal Citation Reports as a collection tool. Collection management, 10(3/4), 175–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frandsen, T., Rousseau, R., & Rowland, I. (2006). Diffusion factors. Journal of Documentation, 62(1), 58–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García, J. A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2011). Ranking of the subject area of Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(10), 2013–2023. doi:10.1002/asi.21589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: a brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2005). The agony and the ecstasy: the history and meaning of the journal impact factor. International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Retrieved 30 Aug 2011. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jifchicago2005.pdf.

  • Gavel, Y., & Iselib, L. (2008). Web of Science and Scopus: a journal title overlap study. Online Information Review, 32(1), 8–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Núñez, A. J., Vargas-Quesada, B., de Moya-Anegón, F., & Glanzel, W. (2011). Improving SCImago Journal and Country Rank (SJR) subject classification through reference analysis. Scientometrics, 89, 741–758. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0485-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegon, F. (2010). A new approach to the metric of journal scientific prestige: the SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 379–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddow, G., & Genoni, P. (2009). Australian education journals: quantitative and qualitative indicators. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 40(2), 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.W. (2010). Working with ISI data: beware of categorization problems. Research in International Management (20 January). Online: http://www.harzing.com/isi-categorization.

  • Hirsch, J.E. (2005). An index to quantify an individal’s scientific research output, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102(46) 15 November, 16569–16572.

  • Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1995). The classification of interdisciplinary journals: a new approach (pp. 105–115). Brighton: Social Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Illescas, C., Moya-Aregon, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meho, L. I., & Spurgin, K. M. (2005). Ranking the research productivity of LIS faculty and schools: an evaluation of data sources and research methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(2), 1314–1331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(11), 2499–2508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moya-Anegón, F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Corera-Álvarez, E., Muñoz-Fernández, F. J., González-Molina, A., et al. (2007). Coverage analysis of Scopus: a journal metric approach. Scientometrics, 73(1), 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, S. L., & Zainab, A. N. (2003). Availability and overlaps of quality computer science journal holdings in selected university libraries in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 8(1), 45–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pudovkin AI & Garfield E. 2004. Rank-normalized Impact Factor: A way to compare journal performance across subject categories. Proceedings of the 67th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 41, 507–515, Providence, RI. November 17, 2004.

  • Raj, R.G., & Zainab, A.N. (2012). Relative measure index: a metric to measure quality. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0675-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, I. (2002). Journal diffusion factors: a new approach to measuring research influence. Aslib Proceedings, 54(2), 77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schloegl, C., & Stock, W. G. (2004). Impact and relevance of LIS journals: a scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals—citation analysis versus reader survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(13), 1155–1168. doi:10.1002/asi.20070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sombatsompop, N., & Markpin, T. (2005). Making an equality of ISI impact factors for different subject fields. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(7), 676–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahal, A., & Meyer, M. J. (1999). A revealed preference study of management journals’ direct influences. Strategic Management Journal, 20(3), 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsay, M. Y. (1998). The relationship between journal use in a medical library and citation use. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 86(1), 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, A.B. (2009). Percentile-Based Journal Impact Factors: A Neglected Collection Development Metric. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. Spring 2009. Retrieved 17 Nov 2011. http://www.istl.org/09-spring/refereed1.html.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge funding received from the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (HIR-MOHE) UM.C/HIR/MOHE/FCSIT/11, which made it possible to undertake this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Library and Information Science, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    A. Abrizah, A. N. Zainab & K. Kiran

  2. Malaysian Citation Centre, Ministry of Higher Education, Putrajaya, Malaysia

    A. Abrizah & A. N. Zainab

  3. Department of Artificial Intelligence, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    R. G. Raj

Authors
  1. A. Abrizah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. N. Zainab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Kiran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. G. Raj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Abrizah.

Appendices

Appendix A

See Appendix Table 7.

Table 7 LIS Journal Indexed in WoS but not in Scopus (n = 11)
Full size table

Appendix B

See Appendix Table 8.

Table 8 LIS Journal Indexed in Scopus but not in WoS (n = 67)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abrizah, A., Zainab, A.N., Kiran, K. et al. LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: a comparison between Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics 94, 721–740 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0813-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0813-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation