, 81:587 | Cite as

A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university

  • Elizabeth S. Vieira
  • José A. N. F. Gomes


For many years, the ISI Web of Knowledge from Thomson Reuters was the sole publication and citation database covering all areas of science thus becoming an invaluable tool in bibliometric analysis. In 2004, Elsevier introduced Scopus and this is rapidly becoming a good alternative. Several attempts have been made at comparing these two instruments from the point of view of journal coverage for research or for bibliometric assessment of research output.

This paper attempts to answer the question that all researchers ask, i.e., what is to be gained by searching both databases? Or, if you are forced to opt for one of them, which should you prefer? To answer this question, a detailed paper by paper study is presented of the coverage achieved by ISI Web of Science and by Scopus of the output of a typical university. After considering the set of Portuguese universities, the detailed analysis is made for two of them for 2006, the two being chosen for their comprehensiveness typical of most European universities. The general conclusion is that about 2/3 of the documents referenced in any of the two databases may be found in both databases while a fringe of 1/3 are only referenced in one or the other. The citation impact of the documents in the core present in both databases is higher, but the impact of the fringe that are present only in one of the databases should not be disregarded as some high impact documents may be found among them.


Citation Impact Citation Database Journal Coverage Scopus Document High Impact Document 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bakkalbasi, 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. (Available at: Scholar
  2. Bosman, J., Van Mourik, I., Rasch, M., Sieverts, E., Verhoeff, H. (2006), Scopus Reviewed and Compared. (Avaliable at: (Accessed: July, 2008).
  3. Bar-Ilan J., Levene M, Lin A. (2007), Some measures for comparing citation databases, Journal of Informetrics 1(1): 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008), Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar, Scientometrics 74(2): 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrondo, M. A. (2008), Bibliometric Study of UNL — Partial Characterization Based On The Publications (2000–2006) in Journals Indexed to Web of Science. (Available at: (Accessed July, 2008).
  6. Fingerman, S. (2005), Scopus: profusion and confusion, Online Medford: Mar/Apr, 29: 2, 36–38.Google Scholar
  7. Gavel Y., Iselid, L. (2008), Web of Science and Scopus: a journal title overlap study, Online Information Review, 32(1): 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jacsó, 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.Google Scholar
  9. Laguardia, C. (2005), E-Views and Reviews: Scopus vs Web of Science. Library (Available at: (Accessed: July, 2008).
  10. Meho L. I., Yang, K. (2007), Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13): 2105–2115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moya-Anegón, F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Corera-Álvarez, E., Muñoz-Fernandéz, F. J., González-Molina, A., Herrero-Solana, V. (2007), Coverage analysis of Scopus: A journal metric approach, Scientometrics, 73(1): 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Norris, M., Oppenheim, C. (2007), Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature, Journal of Informetrics, 1(2): 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nouws, H., Albergaria, J. T., Vieira, E. S., Delerue-Matos, C., Gomes, J. A. N. F., Documentos Indexados no ISI, Web of Knowledge, 2000–2007, Nota Técnica Research Metrics no 1, 14. Jan.2008, in and
  15. Scopus FAQs (2008),, (Accessed July, 2008).
  16. Scopus Info (2008),, (Accessed July, 2008).
  17. Thomson Reuters, (2008a), Web of Science, (Available at: (Accessed July, 2008).
  18. Thomson Reuters (2008b), ISI Web of Knowledge. (Available at: (Accessed July, 2008).
  19. Universia, Ranking Iberoamericano de Instituciones de Investigación,, (Accessed July, 2008).
  20. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2008), Measuring Academia Research Performance with Advanced Bibliometric Methods, Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden Uniersity, (Accessed July, 2008).
  21. Vaughan, L., Shawb, D. (2008), A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources, Scientometrics, 74(2): 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Requimte/Departamento de Química, Faculdade de CiênciasUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations