斯科普斯
科学网
号码簿
计算机科学
科学计量学
文献计量学
数据科学
图书馆学
情报检索
政治学
梅德林
法学
操作系统
作者
Philippe Mongeon,Adèle Paul‐Hus
出处
期刊:Scientometrics
[Springer Nature (Netherlands)]
日期:2015-10-19
卷期号:106 (1): 213-228
被引量:4377
标识
DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
摘要
Bibliometric methods are used in multiple fields for a variety of purposes, namely for research evaluation. Most bibliometric analyses have in common their data sources: Thomson Reuters' Web of Science (WoS) and Elsevier's Scopus. This research compares the journal coverage of both databases in terms of fields, countries and languages, using Ulrich's extensive periodical directory as a base for comparison. Results indicate that the use of either WoS or Scopus for research evaluation may introduces biases that favor Natural Sciences and Engineering as well as Biomedical Research to the detriment of Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities. Similarly, English-language journals are overrepresented to the detriment of other languages. While both databases share these biases, their coverage differs substantially. As a consequence, the results of bibliometric analyses may vary depending on the database used.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI