Scientometrics

, Volume 106, Issue 2, pp 787–804

Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

Article

Abstract

This article aims to provide a systematic and comprehensive comparison of the coverage of the three major bibliometric databases: Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science. Based on a sample of 146 senior academics in five broad disciplinary areas, we therefore provide both a longitudinal and a cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases. Our longitudinal comparison of eight data points between 2013 and 2015 shows a consistent and reasonably stable quarterly growth for both publications and citations across the three databases. This suggests that all three databases provide sufficient stability of coverage to be used for more detailed cross-disciplinary comparisons. Our cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases includes four key research metrics (publications, citations, h-index, and hI, annual, an annualised individual h-index) and five major disciplines (Humanities, Social Sciences, Engineering, Sciences and Life Sciences). We show that both the data source and the specific metrics used change the conclusions that can be drawn from cross-disciplinary comparisons.

Keywords

Google Scholar Scopus Web of Science H-index hIa Citation analysis Research metrics 

References

  1. Adler, N., & Harzing, A. W. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. The Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adriaanse, L. S., & Rensleigh, C. (2013). Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison. The Electronic Library, 31(6), 727–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2012). Counting citations in the field of business and management: Why use Google Scholar rather than the Web of Science. Scientometrics, 93(3), 553–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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(1), 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS. Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 82(3), 495–506.Google Scholar
  6. Bergman, E. M. L. (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.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chrysomallis, M. (2014, December 8). Scopus continues to add pre-1996 citations [Web log post]. http://blog.scopus.com/posts/scopus-continues-to-add-pre-1996-citations
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Winter, J. C., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: A longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1547–1565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delgado-López-Cózar, E., & Repiso-Caballero, R. (2013). El impacto de las revistas de comunicación: Comparando Google Scholar Metrics, Web of Science y Scopus. Comunicar: Revista Científica de Comunicación y Educación, 21(41), 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Etxebarria, G., & Gomez-Uranga, M. (2010). Use of Scopus and Google Scholar to measure social sciences production in four major Spanish universities. Scientometrics, 82(2), 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franceschet, M. (2010). A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 83(1), 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harzing, A. W. (2007) Publish or Perish. http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm
  14. Harzing, A. W. (2013). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: A longitudinal study of Nobel Prize winners. Scientometrics, 93(3), 1057–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harzing, A. W. (2014). A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics, 98(1), 565–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harzing, A. W., Alakangas, S., & Adams, D. (2014). hIa: An individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences. Scientometrics, 99(3), 811–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harzing, A. W., & Mijnhardt, W. (2015). Proof over promise: Towards a more inclusive ranking of Dutch academics in Economics & Business. Scientometrics, 102(1), 727–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacso, P. (2008). Testing the calculation of a realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for FW Lancaster. Library Trends, 56(4), 784–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacsó, P. (2010). Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 34(1), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA, 302(10), 1092–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levine-Clark, M., & Gil, E. L. (2008). A comparative citation analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 14(1), 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. London School of Economics and Political Science. (2011). Maximizing the impacts of your research: A handbook for social scientists. http://www2.lse.ac.uk/government/research/resgroups/LSEPublicPolicy/Docs/LSE_Impact_Handbook_April_2011.pdf
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mikki, S. (2010). Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for earth sciences. Scientometrics, 82(2), 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Minasny, B., Hartemink, A. E., McBratney, A., & Jang, H. J. (2013). Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. PeerJ, 1, e183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mingers, J., & Lipitakis, E. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mingers, J., & Willmott, H. (2013). Taylorizing business school research: On the ‘one best way’performative effects of journal ranking lists. Human Relations, 66(8), 1051–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roales-Nieto, J. G., & O’Neill, B. (2012). A comparative study of journals quality based on web of science, scopus and google scholar: A case study with IJP&PT. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 12(3), 453–480.Google Scholar
  29. Torres-Salinas, D., Lopez-Cózar, E. D., & 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
  30. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2008). A new look at evidence of scholarly citations in citation indexes and from web sources. Scientometrics, 74(2), 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vieira, E., & Gomes, J. (2009). A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics, 81(2), 587–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wildgaard, L. (2015). A comparison of 17 author-level bibliometric indicators for researchers in Astronomy, Environmental Science, Philosophy and Public Health in Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 104(3), 1–34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Middlesex UniversityLondonUK
  2. 2.University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations