IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i12p2727-d187487.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Active Ageing: Mapping of Scientific Coverage

Author

Listed:
  • José Álvarez-García

    (Financial Economy and Accounting Department, Faculty of Business, Finance and Tourism, University of Extremadura, 10071 Cáceres, Spain)

  • Amador Durán-Sánchez

    (Faculty of Business, Finance and Tourism, University of Extremadura, 10071 Cáceres, Spain)

  • María de la Cruz Del Río-Rama

    (Business Organisation and Marketing Department, Faculty of Business Administration and Tourism, University of Vigo, 32004 Ourense, Spain)

  • Diego Fernando García-Vélez

    (Department of Economics, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja (UTPL), Loja 11-01-608, Ecuador)

Abstract

Population ageing is one of humanity’s greatest achievements with the elderly who offer valuable resources and make an important contribution to the structure of our societies. At the same time, this ageing population poses great challenges, as it requires greater economic and social needs. Institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO) are promoting policies that aim at promoting active ageing, which is understood as the process of optimizing health, participation and security opportunities in order to improve people’s quality of life as they get older. The main objective of this study is to identify scientific production related to the area of Active Ageing. The work methodology used is the bibliometric analysis of the articles indexed in the multidisciplinary databases WoS and Scopus. There were 171 articles in WoS and 234 in Scopus that were selected, with a time limit in 2017. In the analysis carried out it is observed that active ageing is a topic that has aroused interest among researchers in recent years, proof of this is the increase both in the number of articles published in scientific journals and in the citations received. The Scopus database presents a greater coverage of the subject. The Overlap Index shows that Scopus covers 90.06% of the WoS articles and its Single Documents index is 34.19% versus 9.94% of WoS.

Suggested Citation

  • José Álvarez-García & Amador Durán-Sánchez & María de la Cruz Del Río-Rama & Diego Fernando García-Vélez, 2018. "Active Ageing: Mapping of Scientific Coverage," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-21, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:12:p:2727-:d:187487
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/12/2727/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/12/2727/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Myke Gluck, 1990. "A review of journal coverage overlap with an extension to the definition of overlap," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 41(1), pages 43-60, January.
    2. Elizabeth S. Vieira & José A. N. F. Gomes, 2009. "A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 587-600, November.
    3. William W. Hood & Concepción S. Wilson, 2003. "Informetric studies using databases: Opportunities and challenges," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 587-608, November.
    4. John Mingers & Evangelia A. E. C. G. Lipitakis, 2010. "Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 613-625, November.
    5. Norris, Michael & Oppenheim, Charles, 2007. "Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 161-169.
    6. Jacques Wainer & Eduardo C. Xavier & Fabio Bezerra, 2009. "Scientific production in Computer Science: A comparative study of Brazil and other countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 535-547, November.
    7. Alan Walker, 2002. "A strategy for active ageing," International Social Security Review, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(1), pages 121-139.
    8. López-Illescas, Carmen & de Moya-Anegón, Félix & Moed, Henk F., 2008. "Coverage and citation impact of oncological journals in the Web of Science and Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 304-316.
    9. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2011. "Bibliometric rankings of journals based on Impact Factors: An axiomatic approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 75-86.
    10. Goio Etxebarria & Mikel Gomez-Uranga, 2010. "Use of Scopus and Google Scholar to measure social sciences production in four major Spanish universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 333-349, February.
    11. Howard Oxley, 2009. "Policies for Healthy Ageing: An Overview," OECD Health Working Papers 42, OECD Publishing.
    12. Éric Archambault & David Campbell & Yves Gingras & Vincent Larivière, 2009. "Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(7), pages 1320-1326, July.
    13. Sara Marsillas & Liesbeth Donder & Tinie Kardol & Sofie Regenmortel & Sarah Dury & Dorien Brosens & An-Sofie Smetcoren & Teresa Braña & Jesús Varela, 2017. "Does active ageing contribute to life satisfaction for older people? Testing a new model of active ageing," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 295-310, September.
    14. Lindsey Baker & Lawrence Cahalin & Kerstin Gerst & Jeffrey Burr, 2005. "Productive Activities And Subjective Well-Being Among Older Adults: The Influence Of Number Of Activities And Time Commitment," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 431-458, September.
    15. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Emilio Delgado Lopez-Cózar & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, 2009. "Ranking of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases: Web of Science versus Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(3), pages 761-774, September.
    16. Jeffrey A. Burr & Jan E. Mutchler & Francis G. Caro, 2007. "Productive Activity Clusters Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults: Intersecting Forms and Time Commitments," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 62(4), pages 267-275.
    17. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Thelwall, Mike & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1160-1177.
    18. Liwen Vaughan & Debora Shaw, 2008. "A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 317-330, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Christopher J. Keating & José Carlos Cabrera-Linares & Juan A. Párraga-Montilla & Pedro A. Latorre-Román & Rafael Moreno del Castillo & Felipe García-Pinillos, 2021. "Influence of Resistance Training on Gait & Balance Parameters in Older Adults: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-13, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vivek Kumar Singh & Prashasti Singh & Mousumi Karmakar & Jacqueline Leta & Philipp Mayr, 2021. "The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5113-5142, June.
    2. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    3. Maxim N. Kotsemir & Tatiana E. Kuznetsova & Elena G. Nasybulina & Anna G. Pikalova, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Multinational S&T Collaboration Priorities –The Case of Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 53/STI/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    4. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas, 2016. "Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 787-804, February.
    5. Parul Khurana & Kiran Sharma, 2022. "Impact of h-index on author’s rankings: an improvement to the h-index for lower-ranked authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4483-4498, August.
    6. Gabriel Alves Vieira & Jacqueline Leta, 2024. "biblioverlap: an R package for document matching across bibliographic datasets," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4513-4527, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Dašić Predrag, 2015. "State and Analysis of Scientific Journals in the Field of “Economic Sciences” for the Period 1995-2014," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 53(4), pages 547-581, December.
    9. Hamid Bouabid, 2014. "Science and technology metrics for research policy evaluation: some insights from a Moroccan experience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 899-915, October.
    10. 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.
    11. George Emm Halkos & Nickolaos G. Tzeremes, 2011. "Measuring economic journals’ citation efficiency: a data envelopment analysis approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 979-1001, September.
    12. Saïd Echchakoui, 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, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(3), pages 165-184, September.
    13. Saïd Echchakoui, 0. "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, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    14. Halevi, Gali & Moed, Henk & Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2017. "Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the Literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 823-834.
    15. 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.
    16. Philippe Mongeon & Adèle Paul-Hus, 2016. "The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 213-228, January.
    17. Anne-Wil Harzing, 2013. "A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: a longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1057-1075, March.
    18. Ponomariov, Branco & Toivanen, Hannes, 2014. "Knowledge flows and bases in emerging economy innovation systems: Brazilian research 2005–2009," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 588-596.
    19. Teja Koler-Povh & Primož Južnič & Goran Turk, 2014. "Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineering," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1033-1045, February.
    20. Perez-Vega, Rodrigo & Hopkinson, Paul & Singhal, Aishwarya & Mariani, Marcello M., 2022. "From CRM to social CRM: A bibliometric review and research agenda for consumer research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 1-16.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:12:p:2727-:d:187487. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.