A bibliometric analysis of pharmacology and pharmacy journals : Scopus versus Web of Science

Gorraiz, Juan and Schloegl, Christian A bibliometric analysis of pharmacology and pharmacy journals : Scopus versus Web of Science. Journal of Information Science, 2007. (In Press) [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of JIS-0584_-_v3_-_A_bibliometric_analysis_of_pharmacology_and_pharmacy_journals_-_Scopus_versus_Web_of_Science.pdf]
Preview
 PDF
JIS-0584_-_v3_-_A_bibliometric_analysis_of_pharmacology_and_pharmacy_journals_-_Scopus_versus_Web_of_Science.pdf
Download (588kB) | Preview

English abstract

Our study aims at examining the suitability of Scopus for bibliometric analyses in comparison with the Web of Science (WOS). In particular we want to explore if the outcome of bibliometric analyses differs between Scopus and WOS and, if yes, in which aspects. In doing so we focus on the following questions: To which extent are high impact JCR (Journal Citation Reports) journals covered by Scopus? Are the impact factor and the immediacy index usually lower for a JCR journal than the corresponding indicators computed in Scopus? Are there high impact journals not covered by the JCR? And, finally, how reliable are the data in these two databases? Since journal indicators like the impact factor and the immediacy index differ among disciplines, we analysed only journals from the subject pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences. Focussing on one subject category offers furthermore the possibility to go into more detail when comparing the databases. The findings of our study can be summarized as follows: • Each top-100 JCR pharmacy journal was covered by Scopus. • The impact factor was higher for 82 and the immediacy index greater for 78 journals in Scopus in 2005. Pharmacy journals with a high impact factor in the JCR usually have a high impact factor in Scopus. • Several high but no top-impact journal could be identified in Scopus which were not reported in JCR. • The two databases differed in the number of articles within a tolerable margin of deviation for most journals.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: bibliometric analysis; Scopus; Web of Science; Journal Citation Reports; impact factor; immediacy index; comparison of databases; data reliability
Subjects: H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HL. Databases and database Networking.
B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
Depositing user: Christian Schloegl
Date deposited: 09 Nov 2007
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:09
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/10673

References

D. Adam, The counting house, Nature 415, 14.2.2002 (2006), 726-729. [1]

H.M. Dess, Scopus, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 45, Winter, (2006). Available at: http://www.istl.org/06-winter/databases4.html (accessed 10 May 2007). [2]

Scopus, Scopus Info. Available at: http://www.info.scopus.com (accessed 10 May 2007). [3]

H.F. Deis and D. Goodman, Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus, The Charleston Advisor 6(3) (2005). Available at: http://www.charlestonco.com/comp.cfm?id=43 (accessed 10 May 2007). [4]

H.F. Deis and D. Goodman, Update on Scopus, The Charleston Advisor 7(3) (2006). Available at: http://www.charlestonco.com/comp.cfm?id=55 (accessed 10 May 2007). [5]

J. Gorraiz, Web of Science versus Scopus oder das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliotheken. [Web of Science versus Scopus or the current dilemma of libraries], Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Osterreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare 59(1) (2006), 25-30. [6]

P. Jacso, As we may search: Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases, Current Science 89(9) (2005), 1537-1547. Available at: http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102005/1537.pdf (accessed 10 May 2007). [7]

C. LaGuardia, E-Views and reviews: Scopus vs Web of Science, Library Journal.com, January 15th (2005). Available at: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA491154.html%22 (accessed 10 May 2007). [8]

E. Pipp, Inhaltlicher Vergleich von Web of Science und Scopus an Hand der erfassten Zeitschriften. [Comparison of the contents of Scopus and Web of Science by means of journal coverage], Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare 59(1) (2006), 3-18. [9]

K. Schneider, Scopus - Web of Science: Versuch einer Bewertung aus pharmakognostischer Sicht. [Scopus - Web of Science: attempt of an assessment from a pharmacognostic view], Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare 59(1) (2006, 21-24. [10]

B. Wildner, Web of Science - Scopus: Auf der Suche nach Zitierungen. [Web of Science - Scopus: Looking for citations], Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare 59(1) (2006), 18-20. [11]

J. Bosman, I. van Mourik, M. Rasch, E. Sieverts and H. Verhoeff, Scopus reviewed and compared: The coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar (Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, Utrecht 2006). Available at: http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/DARLIN/2006-1220-200432/Scopus%20doorgelicht%20&%20vergeleken%20-%20translated.pdf (accessed 10 May 2007). [12]

Bauer, K. and N. Bakkalbasi, An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment, D-Lib Magazine 11(9) (2005). Available at: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html (accessed 10 May 2007). [13]

P. Jacso, Evaluation of citation enhanced scholarly databases, Journal of Information Processing & Management 48(12) (2006), 763-774. [14]

R. Ball and D. Tunger, Science indicators revisited – Science Citation Index versus Scopus: A bibliometric comparison of both citation databases, Information Services & Use 26(4) (2006), 293-301. [15]

R. Klavans and K.W. Boyack, Is there a convergent structure of science? A comparison of maps using the ISI and Scopus databases. In: D. Torres-Salinas and H.F. Moed (ed.), Proceedings of ISSI 2007, vol. 1, (CSIC, Madrid, 2007), 437-448. [16]

E. Garfield, The impact factor, Current Contents, (25) 20 June 1994, 3-7. Available at: http://scientific.thomson.com/free/essays/journalcitationreports/impactfactor/ (accessed 23 October 2007). [17]

C. Schloegl and J. Gorraiz, Document delivery as a source for bibliometric analyses: the case of Subito, Journal of Information Science 32(3) (2006), 223-237. [18]

Subito, Dokumente aus Bibliotheken e.V. Available at: http://www.subito-doc.de/ (accessed 10 May 2007). [19]

W.G. Stock, Journal Citation Reports: Ein Impact Faktor für Bibliotheken, Verlage und Autoren? [An impact factor for libraries, publishers and authors?], Password (5) (2001), 24-39. [20]

H. Moed, Citation analysis of scientific journals and journal impact measures, Current Science 89(12) (2005), 1990-1996. [21]

P. Jasco, A deficiency in the algorithm for calculating the impact factor of scholarly journals: The journal impact factor, Cortex 37(4) (2001), 590-594. Available at: http://www.jacso.info/PDFs/jacso-cortex-590-594.pdf (accessed 23 October 2007). [22]

P. Jasco, The number game, Online Information Review 24(2) (2000), 180-183. Available at: http://www.jacso.info/PDFs/jacso-numbergame.PDF (accessed 23 October 2007). [23]


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS