The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis
The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
复制
发表时间：
2016-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Paul-Hus, Adele
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mongeon, Philippe;Paul-Hus, Adele
文献计量方法在多个领域用于多种目的，即用于研究评估。大多数文献计量分析都有共同的数据源：汤森路透的 Web of Science (WoS) 和爱思唯尔的 Scopus。本研究的目的是描述这两个数据库的期刊覆盖范围，并评估某些领域、出版国家和语言的代表性是否过多或不足。为此，我们将 WoS（13,605 种期刊）和 Scopus（20,346 种期刊）中活跃学术期刊的覆盖范围与 Ulrich 的广泛期刊目录（63,013 种期刊）进行了比较。结果表明，使用 WoS 或 Scopus 进行研究评估可能会引入有利于自然科学和工程以及生物医学研究的偏见，从而损害社会科学、艺术和人文学科。同样，英语期刊的数量过多，损害了其他语言的期刊。虽然两个数据库都存在这些偏见，但它们的覆盖范围却有很大不同。因此，文献计量分析的结果可能会根据所使用的数据库而有所不同。这些结果意味着，在比较研究评估的背景下，应该谨慎使用WoS和Scopus，特别是在比较不同领域、机构、国家或语言时。文献计量学界应继续努力开发方法和指标，其中包括 WoS 或 Scopus 中未涵盖的科学成果，例如特定领域和国家引文索引。
Bibliometric methods are used in multiple fields for a variety of purposes, namely for research evaluation. Most bibliometric analyses have in common their data sources: Thomson Reuters' Web of Science (WoS) and Elsevier's Scopus. The objective of this research is to describe the journal coverage of those two databases and to assess whether some field, publishing country and language are over or underrepresented. To do this we compared the coverage of active scholarly journals in WoS (13,605 journals) and Scopus (20,346 journals) with Ulrich's extensive periodical directory (63,013 journals). Results indicate that the use of either WoS or Scopus for research evaluation may introduce biases that favor Natural Sciences and Engineering as well as Biomedical Research to the detriment of Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities. Similarly, English-language journals are overrepresented to the detriment of other languages. While both databases share these biases, their coverage differs substantially. As a consequence, the results of bibliometric analyses may vary depending on the database used. These results imply that in the context of comparative research evaluation, WoS and Scopus should be used with caution, especially when comparing different fields, institutions, countries or languages. The bibliometric community should continue its efforts to develop methods and indicators that include scientific output that are not covered in WoS or Scopus, such as field-specific and national citation indexes.