Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrizah, A., Zainab, A. N., Kiran, K., & Raj, R. G. (2013). LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: A comparison between Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics, 94(2), 721–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aksnes, D. W., Schneider, J. W., & Gunnarsson, M. (2012). Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods. Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 36–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, E., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Lariviere, V. (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. doi:10.1002/asi.21062.

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartol, T., & Hocevar, M. (2005). The capital cities of the ten new European Union countries in selected bibliographic databases. Scientometrics, 65(2), 173–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, K., & Marsh, M. (2009). A relative impact ranking of political studies in Ireland. The Economic and Social Review, 40(3), 269–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Macro-indicators of citation impacts of six prolific countries: Incites data and the statistical significance of trends. PLoS One, 8(2), e56768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chirici, G. (2012). Assessing the scientific productivity of Italian forest researchers using the Web of Science, SCOPUS and SCIMAGO databases. iForest—Biogeosciences and Forestry, 5(3), 101–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curk, L., Budimir, G., Seljak, T., & Gerkes, M. (2006). Linking the SICRIS—COBISS.SI—Web of Science systems. Organizacija znanja, 11(4), 230–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demsar, F., & Juznic, P. (2013). Transparency of research policy and the role of librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. doi:10.1177/0961000613503002.

  • Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2012). Opinion paper: Thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0898-z.

  • Haddow, G., & Genoni, P. (2009). Australian education journals: Quantitative and qualitative indicators. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 40(2), 88–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.-W. (2013). Document categories in the ISI web of knowledge: Misunderstanding the social sciences? Scientometrics, 94(1), 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacsó, P. (2009). Errors of omission and their implications for computing scientometric measures in evaluating the publishing productivity and impact of countries. Online Information Review, 33(2), 376–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kronegger, L., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2011). On the dynamics of national scientific systems. Quality & Quantity, 45(5), 989–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasda Bergman, E. M. (2012). Finding citations to social work literature: The relative benefits of using Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(6), 370–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., de Moya-Anegón, F., & Guerrero-Bote, V. P. (2010). Journal maps on the basis of Scopus data: A comparison with the journal citation reports of the ISI. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 352–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Illescas, C., de Moya Anegon, F., & Moed, H. F. (2009). Comparing bibliometric country-by-country rankings derived from the Web of Science and Scopus: The effect of poorly cited journals in oncology. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 244–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meho, L. I., & Sugimoto, C. R. (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, 60(12), 2499–2508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peclin, S., Juznic, P., Blagus, R., Sajko Cizek, M., & Stare, J. (2012). Effects of international collaboration and status of journal on impact of papers. Scientometrics, 93(3), 937–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perc, M. (2010). Growth and structure of Slovenia’s scientific collaboration network. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 475–482.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pumain, D., Kosmopoulos, C., & Dassa, M. (2010). JournalBase—A comparative international study of scientific journal databases in the social sciences and the humanities (SSH). Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography (article 484), doi:10.4000/cybergeo.22862.

  • Tijssen, R. J. W. (2010). Discarding the “basic science/applied science” dichotomy: A knowledge utilization triangle classification system of research journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1842–1852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Lopez-Cózar, E., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2009). Ranking of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases: Web of Science versus Scopus. Scientometrics, 80(3), 761–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2009). A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics, 81(2), 587–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, K., Aksnes, D. W., Sivertsen, G., & Karlsson, S. (2012). Challenges in cross-national comparisons of R & D expenditure and publication output. In Proceedings of 17th international conference on science and technology indicators. Presented at the STI 2012, Montreal, Canada, September 5–8 (Vol. 2, pp. 826–834).

  • Zibareva, I., & Soloshenko, N. (2011). Russian scientific publications 2005–2009 in the science citation index, Scopus, and chemical abstracts databases. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 38(3), 212–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agronomy Department, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Tomaz Bartol

  2. Institute of Information Science, Maribor, Slovenia

    Gordana Budimir

  3. Central Technological Library at the University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Doris Dekleva-Smrekar & Miro Pusnik

  4. Department of Library and Information Science and Book Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Primoz Juznic

Authors
  1. Tomaz Bartol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gordana Budimir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Doris Dekleva-Smrekar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Miro Pusnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Primoz Juznic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomaz Bartol.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bartol, T., Budimir, G., Dekleva-Smrekar, D. et al. Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia. Scientometrics 98, 1491–1504 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1148-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1148-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation