The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis
- 8k Downloads
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.
KeywordsBibliometrics Citation indexes Scopus Web of Science Research evaluation
The authors would like to thank Vincent Larivière for his guidance and insights as well as Stefanie Haustein for her helpful advices.
- 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 http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2016850
- Gingras, Y. (2014). Les dérives de l’évaluation de la recherche: du bon usage de la bibliométrie. Paris: Raisons d’agir.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- National Science Foundation. (2006). Science and engineering indicators, chapter 5: Academic research and development. Data and terminology. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c5/c5s3.htm#sb1
- Santa, S., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2010). Cobertura de la ciencia de América Latina y el Caribe en Scopus vs Web of Science. Investigación Bibliotecológica, 24(52), 13–27.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control—Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Report for the Surf Foundation.Google Scholar