Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

被引:919
|
作者
Harzing, Anne-Wil [1 ]
Alakangas, Satu [2 ]
机构
[1] Middlesex Univ, London NW4 4BT, England
[2] Univ Melbourne, Parkville Campus, Parkville, Vic 3010, Australia
关键词
Google Scholar; Scopus; Web of Science; H-index; hIa; Citation analysis; Research metrics; H-INDEX; OF-SCIENCE; CITATIONS; JOURNALS; COVERAGE; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
This article aims to provide a systematic and comprehensive comparison of the coverage of the three major bibliometric databases: Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science. Based on a sample of 146 senior academics in five broad disciplinary areas, we therefore provide both a longitudinal and a cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases. Our longitudinal comparison of eight data points between 2013 and 2015 shows a consistent and reasonably stable quarterly growth for both publications and citations across the three databases. This suggests that all three databases provide sufficient stability of coverage to be used for more detailed cross-disciplinary comparisons. Our cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases includes four key research metrics (publications, citations, h-index, and hI, annual, an annualised individual h-index) and five major disciplines (Humanities, Social Sciences, Engineering, Sciences and Life Sciences). We show that both the data source and the specific metrics used change the conclusions that can be drawn from cross-disciplinary comparisons.
引用
收藏
页码:787 / 804
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison
    Anne-Wil Harzing
    Satu Alakangas
    [J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 106 : 787 - 804
  • [2] Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar A content comprehensiveness comparison
    Adriaanse, Leslie S.
    Rensleigh, Chris
    [J]. ELECTRONIC LIBRARY, 2013, 31 (06): : 727 - 744
  • [3] 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
  • [4] The difference in referencing in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar
    Anker, Markus S.
    Hadzibegovic, Sara
    Lena, Alessia
    Haverkamp, Wilhelm
    [J]. ESC HEART FAILURE, 2019, 6 (06): : 1291 - 1312
  • [5] A Comparative Citation Analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar
    Levine-Clark, Michael
    Gil, Esther L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & FINANCE LIBRARIANSHIP, 2008, 14 (01) : 32 - 46
  • [6] Comparison of datasets citation coverage in Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Crossref, and DataCite
    Gerasimov, Irina
    Binita, K. C.
    Mehrabian, Armin
    Acker, James
    McGuire, Michael P.
    [J]. SCIENTOMETRICS, 2024, 129 (07) : 3681 - 3704
  • [7] Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories
    Martin-Martin, Alberto
    Orduna-Malea, Enrique
    Thelwall, Mike
    Delgado Lopez-Cozar, Emilio
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 2018, 12 (04) : 1160 - 1177
  • [8] PubMed,Web of Science,Scopus以及Google Scholar比较研究
    廖一平
    [J]. 医学信息学杂志, 2009, 30 (05) : 18 - 20
  • [9] Use Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science for Comprehensive Citation Tracking
    Kloda, Lorie A.
    [J]. EVIDENCE BASED LIBRARY AND INFORMATION PRACTICE, 2007, 2 (03): : 87 - 90
  • [10] Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A multidisciplinary comparison
    Martín-Martín, Alberto
    Orduna-Malea, Enrique
    López-Cózar, Emilio Delgado
    [J]. arXiv, 2018,