Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 98, Issue 2, pp 1491–1504 | Cite as

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

  • Tomaz Bartol
  • Gordana Budimir
  • Doris Dekleva-Smrekar
  • Miro Pusnik
  • Primoz Juznic
Article

Abstract

Web of Science (wos) and scopus have often been compared with regard to user interface, countries, institutions, author sets, etc., but rarely employing a more systematic assessment of major research fields and national production. The aim of this study was to appraise the differences among major research fields in scopus and wos based on a standardized classification of fields and assessed for the case of an entire country (Slovenia). We analyzed all documents and citations received by authors who were actively engaged in research in Slovenia between 1996 and 2011 (50,000 unique documents by 10,000 researchers). Documents were tracked and linked to scopus and wos using complex algorithms in the Slovenian cobiss bibliographic system and sicris research system where the subject areas or research fields of all documents are harmonized by the Frascati/oecd classification, thus offsetting some major differences between wos and scopus in database-specific subject schemes as well as limitations of deriving data directly from databases. scopus leads over wos in indexed documents as well as citations in all research fields. This is especially evident in social sciences, humanities, and engineering & technology. The least citations per document were received in humanities and most citations in medical and natural sciences, which exhibit similar counts. Engineering & technology reveals only half the citations per document compared to the previous two fields. Agriculture is found in the middle. The established differences between databases and research fields provide the Slovenian research funding agency with additional criteria for a more balanced evaluation of research.

Keywords

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

References

  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. Google Scholar
  5. Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26–34.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benoit, K., & Marsh, M. (2009). A relative impact ranking of political studies in Ireland. The Economic and Social Review, 40(3), 269–298.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harzing, A.-W. (2013). Document categories in the ISI web of knowledge: Misunderstanding the social sciences? Scientometrics, 94(1), 23–34.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  16. Kronegger, L., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2011). On the dynamics of national scientific systems. Quality & Quantity, 45(5), 989–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Perc, M. (2010). Growth and structure of Slovenia’s scientific collaboration network. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 475–482.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomaz Bartol
    • 1
  • Gordana Budimir
    • 2
  • Doris Dekleva-Smrekar
    • 3
  • Miro Pusnik
    • 3
  • Primoz Juznic
    • 4
  1. 1.Agronomy Department, Biotechnical FacultyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.Institute of Information ScienceMariborSlovenia
  3. 3.Central Technological Library at the University of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  4. 4.Department of Library and Information Science and Book Studies, Faculty of ArtsUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations