IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v98y2014i2d10.1007_s11192-013-1148-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia

Author

Listed:
  • Tomaz Bartol

    (University of Ljubljana)

  • Gordana Budimir

    (Institute of Information Science)

  • Doris Dekleva-Smrekar

    (Central Technological Library at the University of Ljubljana)

  • Miro Pusnik

    (Central Technological Library at the University of Ljubljana)

  • Primoz Juznic

    (University of Ljubljana)

Abstract

Web of Science (wos) and scopus have often been compared with regard to user interface, countries, institutions, author sets, etc., but rarely employing a more systematic assessment of major research fields and national production. The aim of this study was to appraise the differences among major research fields in scopus and wos based on a standardized classification of fields and assessed for the case of an entire country (Slovenia). We analyzed all documents and citations received by authors who were actively engaged in research in Slovenia between 1996 and 2011 (50,000 unique documents by 10,000 researchers). Documents were tracked and linked to scopus and wos using complex algorithms in the Slovenian cobiss bibliographic system and sicris research system where the subject areas or research fields of all documents are harmonized by the Frascati/oecd classification, thus offsetting some major differences between wos and scopus in database-specific subject schemes as well as limitations of deriving data directly from databases. scopus leads over wos in indexed documents as well as citations in all research fields. This is especially evident in social sciences, humanities, and engineering & technology. The least citations per document were received in humanities and most citations in medical and natural sciences, which exhibit similar counts. Engineering & technology reveals only half the citations per document compared to the previous two fields. Agriculture is found in the middle. The established differences between databases and research fields provide the Slovenian research funding agency with additional criteria for a more balanced evaluation of research.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomaz Bartol & Gordana Budimir & Doris Dekleva-Smrekar & Miro Pusnik & Primoz Juznic, 2014. "Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1491-1504, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:98:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1148-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1148-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-013-1148-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-013-1148-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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.
    2. Elizabeth S. Vieira & José A. N. F. Gomes, 2009. "A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 587-600, November.
    3. Benoit, Kenneth & Marsh, Michael, 2009. "A Relative Impact Ranking of Political Studies In Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 40(3), pages 269-298.
    4. Anne-Wil Harzing, 2013. "Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the Social Sciences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 23-34, January.
    5. Luka Kronegger & Anuška Ferligoj & Patrick Doreian, 2011. "On the dynamics of national scientific systems," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 989-1015, August.
    6. A. Abrizah & A. N. Zainab & K. Kiran & R. G. Raj, 2013. "LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: a comparison between Web of Science and Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 721-740, February.
    7. Perc, Matjaž, 2010. "Growth and structure of Slovenia’s scientific collaboration network," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 475-482.
    8. Éric Archambault & David Campbell & Yves Gingras & Vincent Larivière, 2009. "Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(7), pages 1320-1326, July.
    9. Loet Leydesdorff & Félix de Moya-Anegón & Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote, 2010. "Journal maps on the basis of Scopus data: A comparison with the Journal Citation Reports of the ISI," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(2), pages 352-369, February.
    10. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Emilio Delgado Lopez-Cózar & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, 2009. "Ranking of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases: Web of Science versus Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(3), pages 761-774, September.
    11. Aksnes, Dag W. & Schneider, Jesper W. & Gunnarsson, Magnus, 2012. "Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 36-43.
    12. Stojan Pečlin & Primož Južnič & Rok Blagus & Mojca Čižek Sajko & Janez Stare, 2012. "Effects of international collaboration and status of journal on impact of papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 937-948, December.
    13. Tomaz Bartol & Marjan Hocevar, 2005. "The capital cities of the ten new European Union countries in selected bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 65(2), pages 173-187, November.
    14. Judit Bar-Ilan, 2008. "Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 257-271, February.
    15. Lokman I. Meho & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2009. "Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: A tale of two citation databases—Scopus and Web of Science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(12), pages 2499-2508, December.
    16. Patrick Doreian & Anuška Ferligoj & Luka Kronegger, 2011. "On the dynamics of national scientific systems: a reply," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1025-1029, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    2. Antonio Cavacini, 2015. "What is the best database for computer science journal articles?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2059-2071, March.
    3. Parul Khurana & Kiran Sharma, 2022. "Impact of h-index on author’s rankings: an improvement to the h-index for lower-ranked authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4483-4498, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Wang, Qi & Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 347-364.
    6. Maxim Kotsemir, 2019. "Unmanned aerial vehicles research in Scopus: an analysis and visualization of publication activity and research collaboration at the country level," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 2143-2173, July.
    7. Vítor Vasata Macchi Silva & José Luis Duarte Ribeiro & Gonzalo Rubén Alvarez & Sonia Elisa Caregnato, 2019. "Competence-Based Management Research in the Web of Science and Scopus Databases: Scientific Production, Collaboration, and Impact," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-21, September.
    8. Vivek Kumar Singh & Prashasti Singh & Mousumi Karmakar & Jacqueline Leta & Philipp Mayr, 2021. "The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5113-5142, June.
    9. Wen-Yau Cathy Lin, 2021. "Effects of open access and articles-in-press mechanisms on publishing lag and first-citation speed: a case on energy and fuels journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4841-4869, June.
    10. José Álvarez-García & Amador Durán-Sánchez & María de la Cruz Del Río-Rama & Diego Fernando García-Vélez, 2018. "Active Ageing: Mapping of Scientific Coverage," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-21, December.
    11. Hamid Bouabid, 2014. "Science and technology metrics for research policy evaluation: some insights from a Moroccan experience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 899-915, October.
    12. Shir Aviv-Reuven & Ariel Rosenfeld, 2023. "A logical set theory approach to journal subject classification analysis: intra-system irregularities and inter-system discrepancies in Web of Science and Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 157-175, January.
    13. Mu-hsuan Huang & Wang-Ching Shaw & Chi-Shiou Lin, 2019. "One category, two communities: subfield differences in “Information Science and Library Science” in Journal Citation Reports," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1059-1079, May.
    14. Susan Biancani & Daniel McFarland, 2013. "Social Networks Research in Higher Education," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 4, pages 85-126.
    15. Luka Kronegger & Franc Mali & Anuška Ferligoj & Patrick Doreian, 2012. "Collaboration structures in Slovenian scientific communities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 631-647, February.
    16. Marjan Cugmas & Franc Mali & Aleš Žiberna, 2020. "Scientific collaboration of researchers and organizations: a two-level blockmodeling approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2471-2489, December.
    17. Anuška Ferligoj & Luka Kronegger & Franc Mali & Tom A. B. Snijders & Patrick Doreian, 2015. "Scientific collaboration dynamics in a national scientific system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 985-1012, September.
    18. Aurelia Magdalena Pisoschi & Claudia Gabriela Pisoschi, 2016. "Is open access the solution to increase the impact of scientific journals?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1075-1095, November.
    19. Teja Koler-Povh & Primož Južnič & Goran Turk, 2014. "Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineering," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1033-1045, February.
    20. Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Judit Bar-Ilan: information scientist, computer scientist, scientometrician," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1235-1244, December.

    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:spr:scient:v:98:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1148-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.