Comparing of Science Bibliometric Statistics Obtained From the Web and Scopus

被引:496
作者
Archambault, Eric [1 ,2 ]
Campbell, David [1 ]
Gingras, Yves [2 ]
Lariviere, Vincent [2 ]
机构
[1] Sci Metrix, Montreal, PQ H2J 1Y6, Canada
[2] Univ Quebec, OST, CIRST, Montreal, PQ H3C 3P8, Canada
来源
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY | 2009年 / 60卷 / 07期
关键词
OF-SCIENCE; GOOGLE-SCHOLAR; H-INDEX; CITATION; COVERAGE; IMPACT; RANKINGS; JOURNALS;
D O I
10.1002/asi.21062
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
For more than 40 years, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now part of Thomson Reuters) produced the only available bibliographic databases from which bibliometricians could compile large-scale bibliometric indicators. ISI's citation indexes, now regrouped under the Web of Science (WoS), were the major sources of bibliometric data until 2004, when Scopus was launched by the publisher Reed Elsevier. For those who perform bibliometric analyses and comparisons of countries or institutions, the existence of these two major databases raises the important question of the comparability and stability of statistics obtained from different data sources. This paper uses macrolevel bibliometric indicators to compare results obtained from theWoS and Scopus. It shows that the correlations between the measures obtained with both databases for the number of papers and the number of citations received by countries, as well as for their ranks, are extremely high (R-2 approximate to .99). There is also a very high correlation when countries' papers are broken down by field. The paper thus provides evidence that indicators of scientific production and citations at the country level are stable and largely independent of the database.
引用
收藏
页码:1320 / 1326
页数:7
相关论文
共 20 条
  • [1] Bakkalbasi Nisa, 2006, Biomed Digit Libr, V3, P7, DOI 10.1186/1742-5581-3-7
  • [2] Ball R., 2006, Information Services & Use, V26, P293
  • [3] Which h-index? - A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar
    Bar-Ilan, Judit
    [J]. SCIENTOMETRICS, 2008, 74 (02) : 257 - 271
  • [4] Belew R., 2005, Scientific impact quantity and quality: Analysis of two sources of bibliographic data
  • [5] Bosman Jeroen., 2006, Scopus reviewed and compared: The coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar
  • [6] Burnham Judy F, 2006, Biomed Digit Libr, V3, P1
  • [7] Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses
    Falagas, Matthew E.
    Pitsouni, Eleni I.
    Malietzis, George A.
    Pappas, Georgios
    [J]. FASEB JOURNAL, 2008, 22 (02) : 338 - 342
  • [8] Web of Science and Scopus: a journal title overlap study
    Gavel, Ylva
    Iselid, Lars
    [J]. ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, 2008, 32 (01) : 8 - 21
  • [9] Jacso P, 2005, CURR SCI INDIA, V89, P1537
  • [10] Larivi?re, 2008, 10 INT C SCI TECHN I, P94