Web of Science and Scopus Language Coverage
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 is superior to WoS in coverage of non-English and regional literature of all types.
“Scopus was identified as superior to WoS in the coverage of both non-English and regional literature of all types [49].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [49]
The majority of studies concluded a better coverage of Humanities in Scopus, but opposite observations indicating slightly better coverage of this discipline in WoS have also been noted.
“Although the majority of the aforementioned studies concluded a better coverage of Humanities in Scopus, opposite observations indicating slightly better coverage of this discipline in WoS have also been noted [49,53].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [49]
Both WoS and Scopus offer the widest coverage of Natural, Medicine, Health Sciences, and Technology, while Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) are underrepresented in both DBs.
“These results were confirmed by later comparisons that were performed at the publication level, showing that both DBs offer the widest coverage of Natural, Medicine, Health Sciences, and Technology, while Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) are underrepresented in both DBs [40,49,53,56].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [49]
Scopus indexes more documents than WoS in Chinese, Danish, Japanese, Persian, Swedish, Russian, and French, while WoS indexes more documents in Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Croatian, Malay, Norwegian, and Turkish.
“Scopus was shown to be indexing over ten-times more documents in Chinese than WoS.”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [49]
Less errors in subject classification were indicated in Scopus compared to WoS in a more recent study.
“less errors in subject classification were indicated in Scopus compared to WoS”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [49]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 423
- Authors
- Vera-Baceta, M.-A., Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Wolverhampton (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kousha, Kayvan
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2019-10-12
- Volume
- 121
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1803-1813
- ISSN
- 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
- 1588-2861
- OpenAlex
- W2979876508
- Cited by
- 423
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 63 · 2025: 89 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 16
- FWCI
- 16.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses (University of Wolverhampton) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- 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
- Web of Science, Scopus, language coverage, bibliometric databases, research output measurement, non-English speaking countries, research areas, bibliographic database comparison, research performance monitoring
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
