Cited by 141scientometrics and bibliometrics researchWeb visibility and informetricsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Trends in Russian Research Output Indexed in Scopus and Web of Science

Open access
Moed, Henk F., Markusova, Valentina, Akoev, Mark·2018·Scientometrics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11192-018-2769-8

Cites

16 of 16 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?

  • The share of conference proceedings articles in Scopus and in WoS is statistically similar (approximately 10%).

    “However, although the share of conference proceedings articles in Scopus and in WoS is statistically similar (approximately 10%) [52], the majority of studies determined better coverage of conference material in Scopus when compared to WoS [26,39,53,55,57,59].”
  • The content coverage of Russian scientific literature is growing even exponentially, especially in Scopus, although higher growth rates in the coverage of conference material were determined in WoS compared to Scopus.

    “Meanwhile, the content coverage of Russian scientific literature was determined to be growing even exponentially, especially in Scopus, although higher growth rates in the coverage of conference material were determined in WoS, when compared to Scopus [52].”
  • Serial conference proceedings are highly overlapping between WoS and Scopus.

    “Serial conference proceedings were shown to be highly overlapping between the DBs [40,52].”
  • During 2006-2016, the share of papers in Russian-language journals in Scopus increased from 4.8% to 14.8%, while in WoS it declined from 6.5% to 3.0%.

    “during 2006-2016 period the share of papers in Russian-language journals in Scopus increased from 4.8% to 14.8%, while, in WoS, this percentage declined from 6.5% to 3.0% during the same period [52].”
  • Differences in conclusions about language coverage between WoS and Scopus may be related to differences in study time frames, because non-English document growth is more volatile due to content expansion programs.

    “The different conclusions that were drawn from these studies may be related to the differences in the applied time frames, because, while the total number of publications in the DBs is growing steadily, the increase of non-English documents may be more volatile, especially due to the execution of content expansion programs that were focused on specific source types or regions [52].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moed, H. F., Markusova, V., & Akoev, M.
Affiliations
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • Russian Academy of Sciences (RU)
  • Ural Federal University (RU)
Corresponding author
  • Moed, Henk F.
  • Markusova, Valentina
  • Akoev, Mark
Venue
Scientometrics
Published
2018-05-11
Volume
116
Issue
2
Pages
1153-1180
ISSN
  • 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
  • 1588-2861
OpenAlex
W2799340358
Cited by
141
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 3
FWCI
11.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
  • Electronic Archive of Ural Federal University (ELAR UrFU) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Russian Foundation of Basic Research (17-02-00157)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
Scopus, Web of Science, bibliographic database coverage, Project 5-100, research performance indicators, internationalization of research, publication trends, document types, language of publication, academic disciplines

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