- The paper finds that Scopus offers broader journal coverage than WoS, revealing notable discrepancies across different academic fields.
- It employs a two-step methodology using ISSN and title matching to analyze 13,605 WoS journals and 20,346 Scopus journals against Ulrich’s database.
- The study highlights overrepresentation of English-language and Western country journals, emphasizing potential biases in bibliometric analyses.
A Comparative Analysis of Journal Coverage in Web of Science and Scopus
The paper by Philippe Mongeon and Adèle Paul-Hus provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of the journal coverage of Thomson Reuters' Web of Science (WoS) and Elsevier's Scopus databases. Using Ulrich’s extensive periodical directory as a reference, the paper evaluates the representation of different fields, countries, and languages in these two major bibliometric databases.
Methodological Approach
The paper involved downloading journal lists from WoS, Scopus, and Ulrich’s databases. The authors matched the journals from WoS and Scopus to those in Ulrich's database using a two-step process involving ISSN and title matching. Their final sample included 13,605 journals from WoS and 20,346 from Scopus, contrasted with 63,013 active journals in Ulrich.
Key Findings
The core findings of the paper indicate significant disparities in journal coverage between WoS and Scopus, with both databases exhibiting certain biases. The major points of the analysis are discussed below:
- Field Coverage: Natural Sciences and Engineering (NSE) have the most similar coverage between WoS and Scopus, with around 33% coverage in WoS and 38% in Scopus. Biomedical Research (BM) shows the largest disparity, where Scopus covers almost half of Ulrich’s journals in this field compared to around 28% by WoS. Social Sciences (SS) and Arts and Humanities (AH) are notably underrepresented in both databases.
- Country Representation: Journals from countries such as the US, UK, the Netherlands, and Germany are overrepresented in both databases. For example, US journals represent about 30.7% of WoS and 28.4% of Scopus, compared to their share in Ulrich. Conversely, countries like China and Brazil are underrepresented.
- Language Biases: Predictably, English-language journals are strongly overrepresented in both databases across all fields. Interestingly, Dutch is significantly overrepresented in NSE in both databases.
- Overlap and Exclusivity: Both databases have a considerable overlap in journal coverage, but Scopus indexes a larger number of unique titles across all fields. NSE exhibits the highest proportion of WoS-exclusive journals, indicating discrepancies that could influence field-specific analyses.
Implications
Practical Implications
The identified biases have significant implications for research evaluation. The overrepresentation of certain fields, countries, and languages suggests potential skewing in bibliometric analyses, which often rely heavily on these databases. For example, evaluations focusing on SS and AH might be underestimated in their scientific output and impact due to their lower coverage.
Theoretical Implications
The findings underscore the need for critical evaluation of bibliometric tools used in scientometric studies. The identified field, country, and language biases reflect underlying epistemic cultures that guide publication practices in different disciplines and regions. These biases highlight the importance of considering the database choice's impact on research evaluation outcomes.
Future Developments
The paper prompts future research in several directions. One potential area is the exploration of article-level language data to better understand language biases. Additionally, examining the content of national versus international journals in SS and AH could provide insights into the databases' representational biases. The development of field-specific or national citation indexes could also offer more balanced tools for certain types of analysis.
Conclusion
Mongeon and Paul-Hus present an in-depth analysis of the discrepancies between WoS and Scopus, highlighting significant biases in journal coverage. While Scopus demonstrates a broader coverage, both databases share similar biases favoring NSE and BM over SS and AH, and English-language journals over others. These factors should be considered in bibliometric and scientometric analyses to ensure balanced and accurate research evaluations. The paper advocates for a nuanced understanding of the limitations and strengths of these databases, calling for more equitable tools to capture the full spectrum of global scientific output.