In a recent paper, a group of researchers estimated various bibliometric indicators for the Spanish journal Enfermeria Nefrologica using the software “Publish or Perish”, retrieving data exclusively from Google Scholar. Since their study revealed an unusual high number of citations for the documents published by the journal, we became interested in repeating the bibliometric analysis using data from Scopus. Surprisingly, our analysis revealed a high variability in the number of documents published each year. Therefore, the journal’s website was accessed to confirm whether this irregularity was due to the journal’s publication frequency. According to the data collected, only 50.2% of the documents published by the journal between 2006 and 2017 were registered by Scopus. Such omission-induced errors raise concerns about the validity of various indicators. This study shows that while Scopus needs to improve its quality control systems, editorial management teams need to routinely check the information being indexed by the databases.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Bohannon, J. (2014). Google Scholar wins raves-but can it be trusted. Science, 343, 14.
Cobo Sanchez, J. L., Ochando Garcia, A., Blanco Mavillard, I., Cirera Segura, F., Crespo Monteo, R., & Casas Cuesta, R. (2018). Análisis del impacto del a producción científica de la revista Enfermería Nefrológica entre 1998–2017. Enfermeria Nefrologica, 21(4), 349–358.
Kellner, A. W. A., & Azevedo, R. A. (2013). A closer look at the impact factor (JCR 2012): problems, concerns and actions needed. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, 85(3), 859–862.
Krauskopf, E. (2017). Call for caution in the use of bibliometric data. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(8), 2029–2032.
Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., & Shams, I. (2009). Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA, 302(10), 1092–1096.
Liu, W., Hu, G., & Tang, L. (2018). Missing author address information in Web of Science—An explorative study. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 985–997.
Lopez-Cozar, E.D., Robinson-Garcia, N., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2012) Manipulating Google Scholar citations and Google Scholar metrics: Simple, easy and tempting. ArXiv Preprint. 2012. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/labs/1212.0638. Accessed January 27, 2019.
Martell, C. (2009). A citation analysis of college & research libraries comparing Yahoo, Google, Google Scholar, and ISI web of knowledge with implications for promotion and tenure. College & Research Libraries, 70(5), 460–472.
Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 24, 348–349.
Valderrama-Zurian, J. C., Aguilar-Moya, R., Melero-Fuentes, D., & Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2015). A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 570–576.
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Accuracy of citation data in Web of Science and Scopus. In ISSI 2017—16th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics, conference proceedings (pp. 1087–1092).
Zhu, J., Hu, G., & Liu, W. (2018). DOI errors and possible solutions for Web of Science. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2980-7.
This work was supported by the Grant Proyecto de Financiamiento Basal AFB170004.
About this article
Cite this article
Krauskopf, E. Missing documents in Scopus: the case of the journal Enfermeria Nefrologica. Scientometrics 119, 543–547 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03040-z
- Missing issues
- Missing documents