Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: Which is best for me? | Impact of Social Sciences

“Being able to find, assess and place new research within a field of knowledge, is integral to any research project. For social scientists this process is increasingly likely to take place on Google Scholar, closely followed by traditional scholarly databases. In this post, Alberto Martín-Martín, Enrique Orduna-Malea , Mike Thelwall, Emilio Delgado-López-Cózar, analyse the relative coverage of the three main research databases, Google Scholar, Web of Science and Scopus, finding significant divergences in the social sciences and humanities and suggest that researchers face a trade-off when using different databases: between more comprehensive, but disorderly systems and orderly, but limited systems….”

The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis | SpringerLink

Abstract:  Traditionally, Web of Science and Scopus have been the two most widely used databases for bibliometric analyses. However, during the last few years some new scholarly databases, such as Dimensions, have come up. Several previous studies have compared different databases, either through a direct comparison of article coverage or by comparing the citations across the databases. This article aims to present a comparative analysis of the journal coverage of the three databases (Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions), with the objective to describe, understand and visualize the differences in them. The most recent master journal lists of the three databases is used for analysis. The results indicate that the databases have significantly different journal coverage, with the Web of Science being most selective and Dimensions being the most exhaustive. About 99.11% and 96.61% of the journals indexed in Web of Science are also indexed in Scopus and Dimensions, respectively. Scopus has 96.42% of its indexed journals also covered by Dimensions. Dimensions database has the most exhaustive journal coverage, with 82.22% more journals than Web of Science and 48.17% more journals than Scopus. This article also analysed the research outputs for 20 selected countries for the 2010–2018 period, as indexed in the three databases, and identified database-induced variations in research output volume, rank, global share and subject area composition for different countries. It is found that there are clearly visible variations in the research output from different countries in the three databases, along with differential coverage of different subject areas by the three databases. The analytical study provides an informative and practically useful picture of the journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions databases.

 

Hungary and Elsevier agree pilot national license for research access and Open Access publishing

“Hungarian Electronic Information Service National Programme (EISZ) and Elsevier, a global information analytics business specializing in science and health, today agreed a new pilot license for research access and Open Access publishing in Hungary.

The three-year agreement means researchers affiliated to EISZ consortium member institutions across Hungary have access to 16 million publications from over 2,500 journals published by Elsevier and its society partners on ScienceDirect, Elsevier’s leading platform of peer-reviewed scholarly literature. The agreement also facilitates a cost-neutral transition to Open Access and enables Hungarian researchers from EISZ affiliated institutions to publish their research Open Access without researchers having to pay an APC. More information on the Open Access Pilot can be found here….”

Mapping the Scholarly Literature Found in Scopus on “Research Data Management”: A Bibliometric and Data Visualization Approach

Abstract:  INTRODUCTION Since the 2000s, interest in research data management (RDM) has grown considerably. As a result, a large body of literature has discussed a broad variety of aspects related to data management. But, few studies have examined and also interpreted from visual perception the intellectual structure and progressive development of the existing literature on RDM. METHODS Guided by five research questions, this study employed bibliometric techniques and a visualization tool (CiteSpace) to identify and analyze the patterns of the scholarly publications about RDM. RESULTS Through CiteSpace’s modeling and computing, the knowledge (or network) structures, significant studies, notable topics, and development trends in the literature of RDM were revealed. DISCUSSION The majority of the literature pertinent to RDM was published after 2002. Major research clusters within this interdisciplinary field include “scientific collaboration,” “research support service,” and “data literacy,” while the “scientific collaboration” research cluster was the most active. Topics such as “digital curation” and “information processing” appeared most frequently in the RDM literature. Additionally, there was a sharp increase in several specific topics, such as “digital library,” “big data,” and “data sharing.” CONCLUSION By looking into the “profile” of the literature on RDM, in terms of knowledge structure, evolving trends, and important topics in the domain, this work will add new information to current discussions about RDM, new service development, and future research focuses in this area.

Mapping the Scholarly Literature Found in Scopus on “Research Data Management”: A Bibliometric and Data Visualization Approach

Abstract:  INTRODUCTION Since the 2000s, interest in research data management (RDM) has grown considerably. As a result, a large body of literature has discussed a broad variety of aspects related to data management. But, few studies have examined and also interpreted from visual perception the intellectual structure and progressive development of the existing literature on RDM. METHODS Guided by five research questions, this study employed bibliometric techniques and a visualization tool (CiteSpace) to identify and analyze the patterns of the scholarly publications about RDM. RESULTS Through CiteSpace’s modeling and computing, the knowledge (or network) structures, significant studies, notable topics, and development trends in the literature of RDM were revealed. DISCUSSION The majority of the literature pertinent to RDM was published after 2002. Major research clusters within this interdisciplinary field include “scientific collaboration,” “research support service,” and “data literacy,” while the “scientific collaboration” research cluster was the most active. Topics such as “digital curation” and “information processing” appeared most frequently in the RDM literature. Additionally, there was a sharp increase in several specific topics, such as “digital library,” “big data,” and “data sharing.” CONCLUSION By looking into the “profile” of the literature on RDM, in terms of knowledge structure, evolving trends, and important topics in the domain, this work will add new information to current discussions about RDM, new service development, and future research focuses in this area.

Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science?

Abstract:  In the last 3 years, several new (free) sources for academic publication and citation data have joined the now well-established Google Scholar, complementing the two traditional commercial data sources: Scopus and the Web of Science. The most important of these new data sources are Microsoft Academic (2016), Crossref (2017) and Dimensions (2018). Whereas Microsoft Academic has received some attention from the bibliometric commu-nity, there are as yet very few studies that have investigated the coverage of Crossref or Dimensions. To address this gap, this brief letter assesses Crossref and Dimensions cover-age in comparison to Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science through a detailed investigation of the full publication and citation record of a single academic, as well as six top journals in Business & Economics. Overall, this first small-scale study suggests that, when compared to Scopus and the Web of Science, Crossref and Dimensions have a similar or better coverage for both publications and citations, but a substantively lower coverage than Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic. If our find-ings can be confirmed by larger-scale studies, Crossref and Dimensions might serve as good alternatives to Scopus and the Web of Science for both literature reviews and citation analysis. However, Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic maintain their position as the most comprehensive free sources for publication and citation data