- The paper finds that Scopus offers around 20% more record coverage than Web of Science while lacking depth in older publications.
- The paper employs both qualitative and quantitative methods to assess search functionalities, citation metrics, and user interfaces in each database.
- The paper highlights that while Web of Science provides robust historical data and detailed citation analytics, Scopus excels in accessibility and broader coverage.
Comparative Analysis of Web of Science and Scopus Databases
The proliferation of academic literature necessitates efficient and objective databases for literature searches and citation analyses. Arezoo Aghaei Chadegani et al. have authored a comprehensive paper comparing two primary academic databases, Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus. This paper examines various qualitative and quantitative characteristics to inform researchers about the strengths and limitations of each database.
Provenance and Coverage
Web of Science (WOS), developed by the Thomson Reuters Institute of Scientific Information (ISI), has extensive historical depth, archiving data back to 1900. It encompasses over 10,000 academic journals across diverse fields including the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI Expanded), and several others. In contrast, Scopus, launched by Elsevier in 2004, claims the largest database with over 49 million records, spanning more than 20,500 peer-reviewed journals, open-access journals, trade publications, and book series.
The paper references Vieira and Gomes' (2009) finding that Scopus offers approximately 20% more coverage than WOS. Still, it also highlights that Scopus's coverage can occasionally be fragmented, particularly for older records, hence potentially compromising continuity.
Searching and Analysis of Results
Both databases provide robust searching functionalities—standard, basic, and advanced search options. They allow filtration by author, institution, document type, and more, with results that can be printed, emailed, or exported. However, WOS offers superior analytical tools, such as creating histograms and utilizing Scientific Web Plus to obtain comprehensive web content and collaborator information.
Scopus' journal analyzer and faceted indexing simplify metadata presentation and enhance user experience. Nonetheless, a noted limitation is Scopus's lack of pre-1996 references, whereas WOS provides a more exhaustive temporal range.
Citation Tracking and Analysis
Citation tracking is crucial for measuring the impact and influence of academic work. Both WOS and Scopus provide citation tracking features and h-index calculations. WOS citation reports deliver detailed charts and average citations per item, while Scopus offers citation information with options to exclude self-citations.
The paper cites several works (e.g., Levine Clark & Gil, 2009; Haddow & Genoni, 2010) that found Scopus often yields higher citation counts than WOS. However, this does not universally imply superiority; it often depends on the research domain.
Forming and Costs
The user interface and ease of use favor Scopus, particularly for novice users, as described by Burnham (2006). Pricing, a significant concern, varies widely and is influenced by subscription negotiations. Scopus' costs have been noted to range from $20,000 to$120,000 per year, marginally lower than WOS for comparable services.
Impact Factors
Impact factors (IF) play a pivotal role in journal rankings. While WOS annually publishes journal IFs, Scopus requires manual computations or alternative tools to derive IF metrics. Lopez Illescas et al. (2008) observed higher IFs for journals indexed by both WOS and Scopus, contrasting with those exclusive to one database. There is variance within specific disciplines, challenging the IF as a one-size-fits-all metric.
Indexing Metrics
The h-index is prominently discussed, with both databases automatically providing this metric. Jacso (2011) underscores the comprehensive coverage of citations in Scopus post-1995, revealing substantial h-index values. Comparative studies (e.g., Bar-Ilan, 2008) show close alignment between WOS and Scopus h-index results, though nuances persist depending on research field and database content.
Researcher Profile and ID Tools
Both databases facilitate author searches and profiles. Scopus employs an Author Identifier for disambiguation, while WOS provides Researcher ID, aiding in publication management and citation tracking. These tools enhance researcher visibility and streamline the management of academic profiles.
Conclusion
The paper meticulously dissects the strengths and limitations of WOS and Scopus. WOS boasts historical depth and detailed citation analytics, while Scopus excels in broader coverage and user accessibility. No definitive conclusion emerges about which database is superior; rather, the choice often hinges on specific research needs and fields. Future research should explore user preferences to refine database features further, ensuring they cater adequately to the academic community.
References
The provided references in the paper offer a substantial foundation for further investigation into WOS and Scopus comparisons, reflecting the broad analysis undertaken by the authors.