The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis


Bibliometric methods are used in multiple fields for a variety of purposes, namely for research evaluation. Most bibliometric analyses have in common their data sources: Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science (WoS) and Elsevier’s Scopus. The objective of this research is to describe the journal coverage of those two databases and to assess whether some field, publishing country and language are over or underrepresented. To do this we compared the coverage of active scholarly journals in WoS (13,605 journals) and Scopus (20,346 journals) with Ulrich’s extensive periodical directory (63,013 journals). Results indicate that the use of either WoS or Scopus for research evaluation may introduce biases that favor Natural Sciences and Engineering as well as Biomedical Research to the detriment of Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities. Similarly, English-language journals are overrepresented to the detriment of other languages. While both databases share these biases, their coverage differs substantially. As a consequence, the results of bibliometric analyses may vary depending on the database used. These results imply that in the context of comparative research evaluation, WoS and Scopus should be used with caution, especially when comparing different fields, institutions, countries or languages. The bibliometric community should continue its efforts to develop methods and indicators that include scientific output that are not covered in WoS or Scopus, such as field-specific and national citation indexes.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6


  1. 1. Data downloaded between June 8th and June 12th 2014.

  2. 2. Data Downloaded on June 25th 2014.

  3. 3.

    The list included inactive journal titles, namely from the Zoological Record and BIOSOS Previews collections.

  4. 4. Downloaded on June 25th 2014.


  1. Abrizah, A., Zainab, A. N., Kiran, K., & Raj, R. G. (2012). LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: A comparison between Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics, 94(2), 721–740. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0813-7.

  2. Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1320–1326. doi:10.1002/asi.21062.

  3. Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329–342.

  4. Barnett, P., & Lascar, C. (2012). Comparing unique title coverage of Web of Science and Scopus in Earth and atmospheric sciences. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. doi:10.5062/F4W37T8C.

  5. Clermont, M., & Dyckhoff, H. (2012). Coverage of business administration literature in Google Scholar: Analysis and comparison with Econbiz, Scopus and Web of Science (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2016850). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from

  6. De Groote, S. L., & Raszewski, R. (2012). Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: A case study of the h-index in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 60(6), 391–400. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2012.04.007.

  7. Franceschet, M. (2009). A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 83(1), 243–258. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0021-2.

  8. Gavel, Y., & Iselid, L. (2008). Web of Science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Information Review, 32(1), 8–21. doi:10.1108/14684520810865958.

  9. Gingras, Y. (2014). Les dérives de l’évaluation de la recherche: du bon usage de la bibliométrie. Paris: Raisons d’agir.

  10. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1999). A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Information Processing and Management, 35(1), 31–44. doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00028-4.

  11. Hicks, D., & Wang, J. (2011). Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 284–294. doi:10.1002/asi.21458.

  12. Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1991). Epistemic cultures: Forms of reason in science. History of Political Economy, 23(1), 105–122.

  13. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics, 74(2), 273–294. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0217-x.

  14. Larivière, V., Archambault, É., Gingras, Y., & Vignola-Gagné, É. (2006). The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 997–1004. doi:10.1002/asi.20349.

  15. Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0127502. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127502.

  16. López-Illescas, C., de Moya-Anegón, 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. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.08.001.

  17. 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), 2105–2125. doi:10.1002/asi.20677.

  18. Mikki, S. (2009). Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for earth sciences. Scientometrics, 82(2), 321–331. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0038-6.

  19. Mingers, J., & Lipitakis, E. A. E. C. G. (2010). Counting the citations: A comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, 85(2), 613–625. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0270-0.

  20. National Science Foundation. (2006). Science and engineering indicators, chapter 5: Academic research and development. Data and terminology. Retrieved from

  21. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2.

  22. Osca-Lluch, J., Miguel, S., González, C., Peñaranda-Ortega, M., & Quiñones-Vidal, E. (2013). Cobertura y solapamiento de Web of Science y Scopus en el análisis de la actividad científica española en psicología. Anales de Psicología. doi:10.6018/analesps.29.3.154911.

  23. Santa, S., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2010). Cobertura de la ciencia de América Latina y el Caribe en Scopus vs Web of Science. Investigación Bibliotecológica24(52), 13–27.

  24. van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51(1), 335–346. doi:10.1023/A:1010549719484.

  25. Wouters, P. (2006). Aux origines de la scientométrie: La naissance du Science Citation Index. Actes de La Recherche En Sciences Sociales, 4(164), 10–21. doi:10.3917/arss.164.0011.

  26. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and controlTracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Report for the Surf Foundation.

Download references


The authors would like to thank Vincent Larivière for his guidance and insights as well as Stefanie Haustein for her helpful advices.

Author information

Correspondence to Philippe Mongeon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106, 213–228 (2016).

Download citation


  • Bibliometrics
  • Citation indexes
  • Scopus
  • Web of Science
  • Research evaluation