Bibliometric studies in management and related fields are growing exponentially due to the need to systematize and summarize the growing body of publications. To do so, scholars mostly retrieve publications and metadata from either Scopus or Web of Science. Only a few bibliometric studies merge the two databases to conduct a single integrated analysis. Recent studies demonstrated the benefits of merging data from Scopus and Web of Science and presented methods for the merging. In this paper we build upon a recent method to simplify some of the key steps of merging datasets when using the R package Bibliometrix to perform bibliometric analyses. The result is a user friendly, accessible, three-step method that allows researchers to save time without compromising the integrity of the data, and the analysis. Our method is particularly beneficial for a wider application as it does not require coding skills, and neither proprietary nor shareware software.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Abdulhayoglu, M.A., and B. Thijs. 2018. Use of locality sensitive hashing (LSH) algorithm to match Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics 116 (2): 1229–1245.
Archambault, É., et al. 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.
Aria, M., and C. Cuccurullo. 2017a. A brief introduction to bibliometrix. Journal of Informetrics 11 (4): 959–975.
Aria, M., and C. Cuccurullo. 2017b. Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics 11 (4): 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.
Baier-Fuentes, H., et al. 2019. International entrepreneurship: A bibliometric overview. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 15 (2): 385–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0487-y.
Broadus, R.N. 1987. Toward a definition of “bibliometrics.” Scientometrics 12 (5–6): 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016680.
Caputo, A. 2013. A literature review of cognitive biases in negotiation processes. International Journal of Conflict Management 24 (4): 274–398. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-08-2012-0064.
Caputo, A., et al. 2016. Internationalisation of firms from Central and Eastern Europe. European Business Review 28 (6): 630–651. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-01-2016-0004.
Caputo, A., et al. 2018. Conflict management in family businesses: A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. International Journal of Conflict Management 29 (4): 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-02-2018-0027.
Caputo, A., et al. 2021. Digitalization and business models: Where are we going? A science map of the field. Journal of Business Research 123: 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.053.
Castillo-Vergara, M., A. Alvarez-Marin, and D. Placencio-Hidalgo. 2018. A bibliometric analysis of creativity in the field of business economics. Journal of Business Research 85: 1–9.
Dabić, M., et al. 2020. Pathways of SME internationalization: A bibliometric and systematic review. Small Business Economics 55 (3): 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00181-6.
Echchakoui, S. 2020. Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: The case of sales force literature from 1912 to 2019. Journal of Marketing Analytics 8 (3): 165–184.
Ellegaard, O. 2018. The application of bibliometric analysis: Disciplinary and user aspects. Scientometrics 116 (1): 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2765-z.
Fakhar Manesh, M., et al. 2021. Knowledge management in the fourth industrial revolution: Mapping the literature and scoping future avenues. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 68 (1): 289–300.
Ferreira, F.A.F. 2018. Mapping the field of arts-based management: Bibliographic coupling and co-citation analyses. Journal of Business Research 85: 348–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.026.
Gavel, Y., and L. Iselid. 2008. Web of Science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Information Review 32 (1): 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520810865958.
Iacobucci, D., et al. 2019. The state of marketing analytics in research and practice. Journal of Marketing Analytics 7 (3): 152–181.
Larivière, V., S. Haustein, and P. Mongeon. 2015. The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS ONE 10 (6): e0127502.
Martín-Martín, A., et al. 2018. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics 12 (4): 1160–1177.
Moher, D., et al. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine 6 (7): e1000097.
Mongeon, P., and A. Paul-Hus. 2016. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106 (1): 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.
Neuhaus, C., and H. Daniel 2008. Data sources for performing citation analysis: An overview. Journal of Documentation.
Nosek, B.A., et al. 2015. Promoting an open research culture. Science 348 (6242): 1422–1425.
Palumbo, R. et al. 2021. Organizing a sustainable smart urban ecosystem: Perspectives and insights from a bibliometric analysis and literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 126622.
Paul, J., and A.R. Criado. 2020. The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review 29 (4): 101717.
Sánchez, A.D., M.D. Del Río, and J.Á. García. 2017. Bibliometric analysis of publications on wine tourism in the databases Scopus and WoS. European Research on Management and Business Economics. 23 (1): 8–15.
Tranfield, D., D. Denyer, and P. Smart. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management 14 (3): 207–222.
Van Eck, N.J., and L. Waltman. 2010. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84 (2): 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.
Visser, M., N.J. van Eck, and L. Waltman. 2021. Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Science Studies 2 (1): 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112.
Vlačić, B., et al. 2021. The evolving role of artificial intelligence in marketing: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research 128: 187–203.
Web of Science Core Collection. 2021.
Zhu, J., and W. Liu. 2020. A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics 123: 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8.
Zupic, I., and T. Čater. 2015. Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods 18 (3): 429–472.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Caputo, A., Kargina, M. A user-friendly method to merge Scopus and Web of Science data during bibliometric analysis. J Market Anal 10, 82–88 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-021-00142-7
- Bibliometric analysis
- Web of Science
- Merged databases