IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/46898.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases

Author

Listed:
  • Aghaei Chadegani, Arezoo
  • Salehi, Hadi
  • Md Yunus, Melor
  • Farhadi, Hadi
  • Fooladi, Masood
  • Farhadi, Maryam
  • Ale Ebrahim, Nader

Abstract

Nowadays, the world’s scientific community has been publishing an enormous number of papers in different scientific fields. In such environment, it is essential to know which databases are equally efficient and objective for literature searches. It seems that two most extensive databases are Web of Science and Scopus. Besides searching the literature, these two databases used to rank journals in terms of their productivity and the total citations received to indicate the journals impact, prestige or influence. This article attempts to provide a comprehensive comparison of these databases to answer frequent questions which researchers ask, such as: How Web of Science and Scopus are different? In which aspects these two databases are similar? Or, if the researchers are forced to choose one of them, which one should they prefer? For answering these questions, these two databases will be compared based on their qualitative and quantitative characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Aghaei Chadegani, Arezoo & Salehi, Hadi & Md Yunus, Melor & Farhadi, Hadi & Fooladi, Masood & Farhadi, Maryam & Ale Ebrahim, Nader, 2013. "A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases," MPRA Paper 46898, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Mar 2013.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:46898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/46898/1/MPRA_paper_46898.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bar-Ilan, Judit & Levene, Mark & Lin, Ayelet, 2007. "Some measures for comparing citation databases," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 26-34.
    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. Fairclough, Ruth & Thelwall, Mike, 2015. "National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 845-859.
    2. repec:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:4:p:567-:d:95281 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:1:p:168-:d:126537 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:spr:scient:v:112:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2431-x is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Guerrero-Baena, M. Dolores & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Fruet Cardozo, J. Vicente, 2014. "Are Multi-criteria Decision Making Techniques Useful for Solving Corporate Finance Problems? A Bibliometric Analysis || ¿Son adecuadas las técnicas de decisión multicriterio para resolver los problema," Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa = Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, vol. 17(1), pages 60-79, June.
    6. repec:spr:scient:v:112:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2419-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:spr:scient:v:103:y:2015:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1524-z is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Ale Ebrahim, Nader & Salehi, Hadi & Embi, Mohamed Amin & Habibi Tanha, Farid & Gholizadeh, Hossein & Motahar, Seyed Mohammad & Ordi, Ali, 2013. "Effective Strategies for Increasing Citation Frequency," MPRA Paper 50919, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 12 Oct 2013.
    9. Moisescu, Ovidiu-Ioan, 2014. "Assessing Customer Loyalty: A Literature Review," MPRA Paper 65287, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Zoo, Hanah & de Vries, Henk J. & Lee, Heejin, 2017. "Interplay of innovation and standardization: Exploring the relevance in developing countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 334-348.
    11. Michal Brzezinski, 2015. "Power laws in citation distributions: evidence from Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 213-228, April.
    12. Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri & Pascal Bador & Thierry Lafouge & Hélène Prost, 2016. "Relationships between consumption, publication and impact in French universities in a value perspective: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 263-280, January.
    13. Ale Ebrahim, Nader, 2013. "Introduction to the Research Tools Mind Map," MPRA Paper 47627, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Chen, Wei & Liu, Wenjing & Geng, Yong & Brown, Mark T. & Gao, Cuixia & Wu, Rui, 2017. "Recent progress on emergy research: A bibliometric analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1051-1060.
    15. 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

    Keywords

    web of science; scopus; database; citations; provenance; coverage; searching; citation tracking; impact factor; indexing; h-index; researcher profile; researcher ID;

    JEL classification:

    • I0 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - General
    • I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development
    • O10 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General
    • Z00 - Other Special Topics - - General - - - General
    • Z1 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics
    • Z18 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Public Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pra:mprapa:46898. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joachim Winter) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.