A Criteria-based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science

doi:10.2478/jdis-2019-0001

Abstract

Abstract:

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the coverage of the scientific literature in Scopus and Web of Science from the perspective of research evaluation.

Design/methodology/approach: The academic communities of Norway have agreed on certain criteria for what should be included as original research publications in research evaluation and funding contexts. These criteria have been applied since 2004 in a comprehensive bibliographic database called the Norwegian Science Index (NSI). The relative coverages of Scopus and Web of Science are compared with regard to publication type, field of research and language.

Findings: Our results show that Scopus covers 72 percent of the total Norwegian scientific and scholarly publication output in 2015 and 2016, while the corresponding figure for Web of Science Core Collection is 69 percent. The coverages are most comprehensive in medicine and health (89 and 87 percent) and in the natural sciences and technology (85 and 84 percent). The social sciences (48 percent in Scopus and 40 percent in Web of Science Core Collection) and particularly the humanities (27 and 23 percent) are much less covered in the two international data sources.

Research limitation: Comparing with data from only one country is a limitation of the study, but the criteria used to define a country’s scientific output as well as the identification of patterns of field-dependent partial representations in Scopus and Web of Science should be recognizable and useful also for other countries.

Originality/value: The novelty of this study is the criteria-based approach to studying coverage problems in the two data sources.

Key words: Scopus, Web of Science, Norwegian Science Index, Research evaluation, Evaluation criteria, Scientific publications

Dag,W. Aksnes,Gunnar Sivertsen. "A Criteria-based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science." Journal of Data and Information Science, vol.4, no.1, 2019, pp.1-21. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2019-0001

References

[1]	Aksnes D. W., Sivertsen G., van Leeuwen T. N., & Wendt K. K. (2016). Measuring the productivity of national R&D systems: Challenges in cross-national comparisons of R&D input and publication output indicators. Science and Public Policy, 44(2), 246-258. doi:10.1093/scipol/scw058
[2]	Alperin , J.P. (2014). Citation databases omit local journals. Nature, 511(7508), 155-155. doi:10.1038/511155c
[3]	Archambault E., Campbell D., Gingras Y., & Lariviere V. (2009). Comparing of Science Bibliometric Statistics Obtained From the Web and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1320-1326. doi:10.1002/asi.21062
[4]	Barnett ,p., & Lascar, C. (2007). Comparing unique title coverage of Web of Science and Scopus in Earth and atmospheric sciences. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, 70. doi: 10.5062/F4W37T8C
[5]	Bourke ,P., & Butler, L. (1996). Publication types, citation rates and evaluation. Scientometrics, 37(3), 437-494. doi: 10.1007/BF02019259
[6]	Chavarro ,D. (2017). Universalism and particularism: Explaining the emergence and development of regional indexing systems. Brighton. (University of Sussex Ph.D. dissertation)
[7]	Clarivate Analytics. (2018). Web of Science platform: Web of Science: Summary of Coverage. Retrieved from https://clarivate.libguides.com/webofscienceplatform/coverage.
[8]	Collazo-Reyes ,F. (2014). Growth of the number of indexed journals of Latin America and the Caribbean: the effect on the impact of each country. Scientometrics, 98(1), 197-209. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1036-2
[9]	C?té G., Roberge G., & Archambault é. (2016. Bibliometrics and patent indicators for the science and engineering indicators 2016─Comparison of 2016 bibliometric indicators to 2014 indicators. Retrieved from 2016). Bibliometrics and patent indicators for the science and engineering indicators 2016─Comparison of 2016 bibliometric indicators to 2014 indicators. Retrieved from .
[10]	Elsevier. (2017). Scopus. Content Coverage Guide. Retrieved from
[11]	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. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0021-2
[12]	Garfield ,E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, Technology and Humanities. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[13]	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
[14]	Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787-804. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
[15]	Kousha ,K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). 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
[16]	Lopez-Cozar E. D., Robinson-Garcia N., & Torres-Salinas D. (2014). The Google Scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate Bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 446-454. doi:10.1002/asi.23056
[17]	Lopez-Illescas C., de Moya-Anegon 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
[18]	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
[19]	Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
[20]	Mongeon ,P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
[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., Gonzalez C., Penaranda-Ortega M., & Quinones-Vidal E. (2013). Coverage and overlap of the Web of Science and Scopus in the analysis of the Spanish scientific activity in Psychology. Anales De Psicologia, 29(3), 1025-1031. doi:10.6018/analesps.29.3.154911
[23]	Ossenblok T. L. B., Engels T. C. E., & Sivertsen G. (2012). The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science-a comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005-9). Research Evaluation, 21(4), 280-290. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvs019
[24]	Santa ,S., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2010). Coverage in Scopus vs. Web of Science of research produced in Latin America and the Caribbean. Investigacion Bibliotecologica, 24(52), 13-27.
[25]	Sivertsen, G. (2014). Scholarly publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities and their coverage in Scopus and Web of Science. In Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference 2014 Leiden (pp. 598-604). Leiden: Universiteit Leiden - CWTS.
[26]	Sivertsen ,G. (2016). Publication-based funding: The Norwegian Model. In M. Ochsner, S. E. Hug, & H. D. Daniel (Eds.), Research Assessment in the Humanities. Towards Criteria and Procedures (pp. 79-90). Zürich: Springer Open.
[27]	Sivertsen ,G., & Larsen, B. (2012). Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: An empirical analysis of the potential. Scientometrics, 91(2), 567-575. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0615-3
[28]	Van Leeuwen, T. (2013). Bibliometric research evaluations, Web of Science and the Social Sciences and Humanities: a problematic relationship? Bibliometrie - Praxis und Forschung, band 2.