Scientometrics

, Volume 73, Issue 1, pp 53–78 | Cite as

Coverage analysis of Scopus: A journal metric approach

  • Félix de Moya-Anegón
  • Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez
  • Benjamín Vargas-Quesada
  • Elena Corera-Álvarez
  • Francisco José Muñoz-Fernández
  • Antonio González-Molina
  • Victor Herrero-Solana
Article

Abstract

Our aim is to compare the coverage of the Scopus database with that of Ulrich, to determine just how homogenous it is in the academic world. The variables taken into account were subject distribution, geographical distribution, distribution by publishers and the language of publication. The analysis of the coverage of a product of this nature should be done in relation to an accepted model, the optimal choice being Ulrich’s Directory, considered the international point of reference for the most comprehensive information on journals published throughout the world. The results described here allow us to draw a profile of Scopus in terms of its coverage by areas — geographic and thematic — and the significance of peer-review in its publications. Both these aspects are highly pragmatic considerations for information retrieval, the evaluation of research, and the design of policies for the use of scientific databases in scientific promotion.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y. (2005), Welcome to the linguistic warp zone: Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities. In: Ingwersen, P., Larsen, B. (Eds), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI). Karolinska University Press, pp. 149–158.Google Scholar
  2. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. (2000), How Balanced is the Science Citation Index’s Journal Coverage? A preliminary Overview of Macrolevel Statistical Data. In: Cronin, B., Atkins, H. B. (Eds), The Web of Knowledge — A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield. Canada: American Society of Information Science, pp. 251–277.Google Scholar
  3. Codina, L. (2005), Scopus: el mayor navegador científico de la web, El Profesional de la Información, 14: 44–49.Google Scholar
  4. Deis, L. F., Goodman, D. (2005), Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus, The Charleston Advisor, 6. Text available at: http://www.charlestonco.com/comp.cfm?id=43
  5. Jacso, P. (2004), Scopus, Péter’s Digital Reference Shelf. September 2004. Text available at: http://www.galegroup.com/servlet/HTMLFileServlet?imprint=9999&region=7&fileName=reference/archive/200409/scopus.html
  6. 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: 1537–1547 Text available at: http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102005/1537.pdf Google Scholar
  7. Laguardia, C. (2005), E-views and reviews: Scopus vs. Web of Science. Library Journal, 15. Text available at: http://www.libraryjournal.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA491154
  8. Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory. http://www.ulrichsweb.com

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Félix de Moya-Anegón
    • 1
  • Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez
    • 1
  • Benjamín Vargas-Quesada
    • 1
  • Elena Corera-Álvarez
    • 1
  • Francisco José Muñoz-Fernández
    • 1
  • Antonio González-Molina
    • 1
  • Victor Herrero-Solana
    • 1
  1. 1.SCIMAGO Research GroupUniversity of Granada, Library and Information Science FacultyGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Library and Information Science FacultyUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations