Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison

Harzing, Anne-Wil; Alakangas, Satu

doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9

Cited by 1,784scientometrics and bibliometrics researchWeb visibility and informetricsLibrary Science and Information

Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison

Harzing, Anne-Wil, Alakangas, Satu·2016·Scientometrics

DOI 10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Scopus has earned an equal place as a comprehensive bibliographic data source and has proven itself reliable and, in some respects, even better than WoS.
“Over the years, Scopus has earned its equal place as a comprehensive bibliographic data source and it has proven itself to be reliable and, in some respects, even better than WoS [10,13].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Both WoS and Scopus continuously increase their coverage of all source types, showing stable overall content growth.
“It was demonstrated that both DBs continuously increase their coverage of all source types, showing stable overall content growth [13,53].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Differences in citation counts between WoS and Scopus decreased by more than 40% a year after the initiation of the Scopus expansion program.
“the differences in citation counts between WoS and Scopus were observed having been decreased by more than 40% already only a year after the initiation of the expansion program in Scopus [13].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Chapters of authored books in WoS were mistakenly indexed as individual publications.
“chapters of authored books in WoS were (mistakenly) indexed as individual publications”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [13]

Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20677 · Cited by 974 · see citing works
When Knowledge Wins: Transcending the Sense and Nonsense of Academic Rankings
Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2009) · Academy of Management Learning & Education · doi:10.5465/amle.2009.37012181 · Cited by 853 · see citing works
Self-citation
Comparisons of Citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for Articles Published in General Medical Journals
Kulkarni, A. V. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1307 · Cited by 821 · see citing works
Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science
Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006) · Biomedical Digital Libraries · doi:10.1186/1742-5581-3-7 · Cited by 752 · see citing works
Publish or Perish
Harzing, A.-W. K. (2007) · Cited by 734 · see citing works
Self-citation
A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university
Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-2178-0 · Cited by 625 · see citing works
Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison
S. Adriaanse, L., & Rensleigh, C. (2013) · The Electronic Library · doi:10.1108/el-12-2011-0174 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
Taylorizing business school research: On the ‘one best way’ performative effects of journal ranking lists
Mingers, J., & Willmott, H. C. (2012) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726712467048 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar
Bar‐Ilan, J. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0185-9 · Cited by 272 · see citing works
The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study
de Winter, J., ZADPOOR, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar
Franceschet, M. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0021-2 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
Finding Citations to Social Work Literature: The Relative Benefits of Using Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar
Bergman, E. M. L. (2012) · The Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.002 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: a longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners
Harzing, A.-W. K. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0777-7 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Self-citation
Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management
Mingers, J., & Lipitakis, E. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0270-0 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: A case study of the h-index in nursing
Groote, S. L. D., & Raszewski, R. (2012) · Nursing Outlook · doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2012.04.007 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar
Jacsó, P. (2010) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684521011024191 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013
Harzing, A.-W. K. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Self-citation
A Comparative Citation Analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar
Levine‐Clark, M., & Gil, E. L. (2008) · Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship · doi:10.1080/08963560802176348 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
The impact of scientific journals of communication: Comparing Google Scholar Metrics, Web of Science and Scopus
López‐Cózar, E. D., & Repiso, R. (2013) · Comunicar · doi:10.3916/c41-2013-04 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Testing the Calculation of a Realistic h -index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for F. W. Lancaster
Jacsó, P. (2008) · Library trends · doi:10.1353/lib.0.0011 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Counting citations in the field of business and management: why use Google Scholar rather than the Web of Science
Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0729-2 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
hIa: an individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences
Harzing, A.-W. K., Alakangas, S., & Adams, D. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1208-0 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Self-citation
A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources
Vaughan, L. Q., & Shaw, D. (2007) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0220-2 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
A comparison of 17 author-level bibliometric indicators for researchers in Astronomy, Environmental Science, Philosophy and Public Health in Web of Science and Google Scholar
Wildgaard, L. (2015) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1608-4 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for Earth Sciences
Mikki, S. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0038-6 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Ranking of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases: Web of Science versus Scopus
Torres‐Salinas, D., López‐Cózar, E. D., & Jiménez‐Contreras, E. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2113-9 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar
Minasny, B., Hartemink, A. E., McBratney, A. B., & Jang, H. (2013) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.183 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Use of Scopus and Google Scholar to measure social sciences production in four major Spanish universities
Etxebarria, G., & Uranga, M. G. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0043-9 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Proof over promise: towards a more inclusive ranking of Dutch academics in Economics & Business
Harzing, A.-W. K., & Mijnhardt, W. (2014) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1370-z · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Self-citation
A Comparative Study of Journals Quality based on Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A Case Study with IJP&PT
Roales-Nieto, J. G., & O’Neill, B. (2012) · Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · Cited by 11 · see citing works

Flagged first, then by citations

Sorted by citations

Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World
Pranckutė, R. (2021) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications9010012 · Cited by 2,696 · see citing works
The Journal Coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A Comparative Analysis
Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5 · Cited by 2,342 · see citing works
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007 · Cited by 1,356 · see citing works
Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories
Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019) · Sage Open · doi:10.1177/2158244019829575 · Cited by 1,257 · see citing works
Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A Multidisciplinary Comparison of Coverage via Citations
Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4 · Cited by 1,018 · see citing works
The sharing economy and digital platforms: A review and research agenda
Sutherland, W., & Jarrahi, M. H. (2018) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.07.004 · Cited by 725 · see citing works
Sample Selection in Systematic Literature Reviews of Management Research
Hiebl, M. R. W. (2023) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428120986851 · Cited by 635 · see citing works
Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the Literature
Halevi, G., Moed, H., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.005 · Cited by 488 · see citing works
Meta-analysis of the impact of Augmented Reality on students’ learning gains
Garzón, J., & Acevedo, J. (2019) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2019.04.001 · Cited by 491 · see citing works
Wearable activity trackers, accuracy, adoption, acceptance and health impact: A systematic literature review
Shin, G., Jarrahi, M. H., Fei, Y., Karami, A., Gafinowitz, N., Byun, A., & Lu, X. (2019) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103153 · Cited by 326 · see citing works
How to conduct a bibliometric content analysis: guidelines and contributions of content co-occurrence or co-word literature reviews
Klarin, A. (2024) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.13031 · Cited by 292 · see citing works
Empirical Analysis and Classification of Database Errors in Scopus and Web of Science
Franceschini, F., Maisano, D., & Mastrogiacomo, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.07.003 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Determinants of individuals’ belief in fake news: A scoping review determinants of belief in fake news
Bryanov, K., & Vziatysheva, V. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253717 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases
Gusenbauer, M. (2022) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04289-7 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
A systematic review of systematic reviews on blended learning: trends, gaps and future directions
Ashraf, M. A., Yang, M., Zhang, Y., Denden, M., Tlili, A., Liu, J., Huang, R., & Burgos, D. (2021) · Psychology Research and Behavior Management · doi:10.2147/prbm.s331741 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
Circular economy scientific knowledge in the European Union and China: a bibliometric, network and survey analysis (2006–2016)
Türkeli, S., Kemp, R., Huang, B., Bleischwitz, R., & McDowall, W. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.118 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science?
Harzing, A.-W. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Self-citation
Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research
Gentles, S. J., Charles, C., Nicholas, D. B., Ploeg, J., & McKibbon, K. A. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0343-0 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Blockchain technology in the smart city: A bibliometric review
Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Simske, S. J., & Keogh, J. G. (2022) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-021-01251-2 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Competence frameworks of sustainable entrepreneurship: A systematic review
Diepolder, C. S., Weitzel, H., & Huwer, J. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su132413734 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Citation-Based Journal Rankings: Key Questions, Metrics, and Data Sources
Walters, W. H. (2017) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2017.2761400 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
An Evaluation of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar Citations in Operations Management
Chapman, K., & Ellinger, A. E. (2019) · The International Journal of Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/ijlm-04-2019-0110 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts' background, controversial issues, and the media
Rindermann, H., Becker, D., & Coyle, T. R. (2020) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Designing Software Architecture to Support Continuous Delivery and DevOps: A Systematic Literature Review
Bolscher, R., & Daneva, M. (2019) · Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Technologies · doi:10.5220/0007837000270039 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
The Open Access Citation Premium May Depend on the Openness and Inclusiveness of the Indexing Database, but the Relationship Is Controversial Because It Is Ambiguous Where the Open Access Boundary Lies
Copiello, S. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03221-w · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Three Commonly Utilized Scholarly Databases and a Social Network Site Provide Different, But Related, Metrics of Pharmacy Faculty Publication
Burghardt, K. J., Howlett, B. H., Khoury, A. S., Fern, S. M., & Burghardt, P. R. (2020) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications8020018 · Cited by 9 · see citing works

Research trend on the application of “E-learning adoption theory” : A scientometric study during 2000-2019, based on Web of Science and SCOPUS
Mashroofa, M. M., Jusoh, M., & Chinna, K. (2019) · Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management · doi:10.1080/09737766.2020.1729072 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
The Scopus Diaries and the (il)logics of academic survival. A short guide to design your own strategy and survive bibliometrics, conferences, and unreal expectations in academia
Dorr, S. (2020) · Eurasian Geography and Economics · doi:10.1080/15387216.2020.1721308 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
BIBLIOMETRICS OF AGRO INDUSTRY
Garcia-Martinez, B., Gonzales-Acolt, R., & Franco-Barraza, T. (2018) · Review of Business Research · doi:10.18374/rbr-18-2.2
A Comparison of Web of Science and Scopus for Iranian Publications and Citation Impact
Erfanmanesh, M., & Didegah, F. (2013) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Introduction: The Social Sciences in a Cross‐Disciplinary Age
Fontaine, P. (2014) · Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1002/jhbs.21697 · Cited by 20 · see citing works

Authors: Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S.
Affiliations: Middlesex University London (GB)
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author: Harzing, Anne-Wil
ORCID: Harzing, Anne-Wil
Alakangas, Satu
Venue: Scientometrics
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published: 2015-11-26
Volume: 106
Issue: 2
Pages: 787-804
ISSN: 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
1588-2861
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
OpenAlex: W2178471959
Cited by: 1,784
References: 30
Citations by year: 2026: 173 · 2025: 237 · 2024: 268 · 2023: 233 · 2022: 212 · 2021: 210 · 2020: 146 · 2019: 137 · 2018: 87 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI: 50.48
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: closed
Licence: www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations: Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
Middlesex University Research Repository (Middlesex University Of London) (acceptedVersion)
RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics: Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
Keywords: Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, cross-disciplinary comparison, longitudinal comparison, citation coverage, h-index, research metrics, disciplinary differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison

Integrity signals

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Cites

Cited by

Related

Record

About these checks