Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

Abstract

This article aims to provide a systematic and comprehensive comparison of the coverage of the three major bibliometric databases: Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science. Based on a sample of 146 senior academics in five broad disciplinary areas, we therefore provide both a longitudinal and a cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases.Our longitudinal comparison of eight data points between 2013 and 2015 shows a consistent and reasonably stable quarterly growth for both publications and citations across the three databases. This suggests that all three databases provide sufficient stability of coverage to be used for more detailed cross-disciplinary comparisons.Our cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases includes four key research metrics (publications, citations, h-index, and hI,annual, an annualised individual h-index) and five major disciplines (Humanities, Social Sciences, Engineering, Sciences and Life Sciences). We show that both the data source and the specific metrics used change the conclusions that can be drawn from cross-disciplinary comparisons. 2Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison

Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Editor Behavior through Potentially Coercive Citations

“…However, the overall conclusions do not significantly differ [33]. Thus, we are reporting only the data from WoS.…”

“…Nowadays the academic community is using three major multi-disciplinary scientific databases (Web of Science Thomson Reuters (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar) in an extensive way. It is admitted that there is no ideal database [33]. Each has strengths and weaknesses.…”

Microsoft Academic (Search): a Phoenix arisen from the ashes?

“…As our interest in this article is in Microsoft Academic coverage, we do not provide a comparison between Google Scholar on the one hand and the Web of Science and Scopus on the other hand, or between the Web of Science and Scopus. There are many publications that have already done so in the past, including most recently Harzing & Alakangas (2016).…”

“…Delgado-López-Cózar & Repiso-Caballero, 2013, Wildgaard, 2015, Harzing & Alakangas, 2016, the bibliometric research community has paid very little attention to Microsoft Academic Search. A Google Scholar search for journal articles with Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) in the title provides only 5 results.…”

Thomas C. Schelling and James M. Sakoda: The Intellectual, Technical, and Social History of a Model

“…For contributions to that controversy cf. the references in [Jascó, 2010] and [Harzing and Alakangas, 2016]. In their case study Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison, Harzing and Alakangas demonstrate that a cautious use of Google Scholar as the data source makes a lot of sense [Harzing and Alakangas, 2016, 800ff.].…”