The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Web of Science use in published research and review papers 1997–2017: a selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis
Open accessAbstract
Clarivate Analytics's Web of Science (WoS) is the world's leading scientific citation search and analytical information platform. It is used as both a research tool supporting a broad array of scientific tasks across diverse knowledge domains as well as a dataset for large-scale data-intensive studies. WoS has been used in thousands of published academic studies over the past 20 years. It is also the most enduring commercial legacy of Eugene Garfield. Despite the central position WoS holds in contemporary research, the quantitative impact of WoS has not been previously examined by rigorous scientific studies. To better understand how this key piece of Eugene Garfield's heritage has contributed to science, we investigated the ways in which WoS (and associated products and features) is mentioned in a sample of 19,478 English-language research and review papers published between 1997 and 2017, as indexed in WoS databases. We offered descriptive analyses of the distribution of the papers across countries, institutions and knowledge domains. We also used natural language processingtechniques to identify the verbs and nouns in the abstracts of these papers that are grammatically connected to WoS-related phrases. This is the first study to empirically investigate the documentation of the use of the WoS platform in published academic papers in both scientometric and linguistic terms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428114562629 · Cited by 7,495
The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing Toolkit
Manning, C., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J., Bethard, S., & McClosky, D. (2014) · Proceedings of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations · doi:10.3115/v1/p14-5010 · Cited by 7,037
Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents
Small, H. (1973) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/asi.4630240406 · Cited by 5,345
Accurate unlexicalized parsing
Klein, D., & Manning, C. D. (2003) · Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - ACL '03 · doi:10.3115/1075096.1075150 · Cited by 3,008
Garfield, E. (1972) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.178.4060.471 · Cited by 2,788
Citation Indexes for Science: A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas
Garfield, E. (1955) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.122.3159.108 · Cited by 2,334
(2022) · Singapore Medical Journal · doi:10.11622/smedj · Cited by 1,730
Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”
Broadus, R. N. (1987) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02016680 · Cited by 1,646
Universal Dependencies v1: A Multilingual Treebank Collection
Nivre, J., de Marneffe, M.-C., Ginter, F., Goldberg, Y., Hajič, J., Manning, C. D., McDonald, R., Petrov, S., Pyysalo, S., Silveira, N., et al. (2016) · Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) · doi:10.63317/2hnj7od8afy8 · Cited by 1,028
Cited by
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
A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers
Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8 · Cited by 1,556
Web of Science as a Data Source for Research on Scientific and Scholarly Activity
Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00018 · Cited by 1,283
The role of (social) media in political polarization: A systematic review
Kubin, E., & von Sikorski, C. (2021) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070 · Cited by 610
“databases, and is the leading science search platform in the world (Li et al., 2018).”
BackgroundMethodThe Data Source of This Study Is Web of Science Core Collection? Not Enough
Liu, W. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03238-1 · Cited by 221
Metadata
- Authors
- Li, K., Rollins, J., & Yan, E.
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2017-12-18
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-20
- ISSN
- 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
- 1588-2861
- OpenAlex
- W2776003688
- Cited by
- 732
- References
- 60
- FWCI
- 17.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Web of Science use in published research and review papers 1997–2017: a selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11192-017-2622-5
- The paper
- Li, K., Rollins, J., & Yan, E. (2018). Web of Science use in published research and review papers 1997–2017: a selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2622-5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.