Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia
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.
KeywordsBibliometrics Citation analysis Research performance Research evaluation Research fields Research information systems Slovenia
- 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.
- Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271. Google Scholar
- Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26–34.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Demsar, F., & Juznic, P. (2013). Transparency of research policy and the role of librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. doi: 10.1177/0961000613503002.
- Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2012). Opinion paper: Thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0898-z.
- Harzing, A.-W. (2013). Document categories in the ISI web of knowledge: Misunderstanding the social sciences? Scientometrics, 94(1), 23–34.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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