IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jamist/v60y2009i12p2499-2508.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: A tale of two citation databases—Scopus and Web of Science

Author

Listed:
  • Lokman I. Meho
  • Cassidy R. Sugimoto

Abstract

This study uses citations, from 1996 to 2007, to the work of 80 randomly selected full‐time, information studies (IS) faculty members from North America to examine differences between Scopus and Web of Science in assessing the scholarly impact of the field focusing on the most frequently citing journals, conference proceedings, research domains and institutions, as well as all citing countries. Results show that when assessment is limited to smaller citing entities (e.g., journals, conference proceedings, institutions), the two databases produce considerably different results, whereas when assessment is limited to larger citing entities (e.g., research domains, countries), the two databases produce very similar pictures of scholarly impact. In the former case, the use of Scopus (for journals and institutions) and both Scopus and Web of Science (for conference proceedings) is necessary to more accurately assess or visualize the scholarly impact of IS, whereas in the latter case, assessing or visualizing the scholarly impact of IS is independent of the database used.

Suggested Citation

  • Lokman I. Meho & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2009. "Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: A tale of two citation databases—Scopus and Web of Science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(12), pages 2499-2508, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:60:y:2009:i:12:p:2499-2508
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.21165
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21165
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.21165?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wang, Qi & Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 347-364.
    2. Vítor Vasata Macchi Silva & José Luis Duarte Ribeiro & Gonzalo Rubén Alvarez & Sonia Elisa Caregnato, 2019. "Competence-Based Management Research in the Web of Science and Scopus Databases: Scientific Production, Collaboration, and Impact," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Gagolewski, Marek & Mesiar, Radko, 2012. "Aggregating different paper quality measures with a generalized h-index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 566-579.
    4. Gagolewski, Marek, 2011. "Bibliometric impact assessment with R and the CITAN package," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 678-692.
    5. Magnus Eriksson & Annika Billhult & Tommy Billhult & Elena Pallari & Grant Lewison, 2020. "A new database of the references on international clinical practice guidelines: a facility for the evaluation of clinical research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1221-1235, February.
    6. Junwen Zhu & Weishu Liu, 2020. "A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 321-335, April.
    7. Gokhan Aykac, 2021. "The value of an overseas research trip," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 7097-7122, August.
    8. Zhenyue Zhao & Xuelian Pan & Weina Hua, 2021. "Comparative analysis of the research productivity, publication quality, and collaboration patterns of top ranked library and information science schools in China and the United States," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 931-950, February.
    9. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    10. A. Abrizah & A. N. Zainab & K. Kiran & R. G. Raj, 2013. "LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: a comparison between Web of Science and Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 721-740, February.
    11. Jean A. Pratt & Karina Hauser & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2012. "Defining the intellectual structure of information systems and related college of business disciplines: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(2), pages 279-304, November.
    12. Tomaz Bartol & Gordana Budimir & Doris Dekleva-Smrekar & Miro Pusnik & Primoz Juznic, 2014. "Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1491-1504, February.
    13. Shir Aviv-Reuven & Ariel Rosenfeld, 2023. "A logical set theory approach to journal subject classification analysis: intra-system irregularities and inter-system discrepancies in Web of Science and Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 157-175, January.
    14. Valderrama-Zurián, Juan-Carlos & Aguilar-Moya, Remedios & Melero-Fuentes, David & Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafael, 2015. "A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 570-576.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:60:y:2009:i:12:p:2499-2508. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.