CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,990scientometrics and bibliometrics researchWeb visibility and informetricsLibrary Science and Information

Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories

Open access
Martín-Martín, Alberto, Orduna-Malea, Enrique, Thelwall, Mike, Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio·2018·Journal of Informetrics
DOI 10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • 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 [56]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2012). Counting citations in the field of business and management: why use Google Scholar rather than the Web of Science. Scientometrics , 93 (3), 553-581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0729-2 · DOI
  2. Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries , 3 (1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-7 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Citations to the 'Introduction to informetrics' indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics , 82 (3), 495-506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-0100185-9 · DOI
  4. Damerau, F. J. (1964). A technique for computer detection and correction of spelling errors. Communications of the ACM , 7 (3), 171-176. https://doi.org/10.1145/363958.363994 · DOI
  5. De Groote, S. L., & Raszewski, R. (2012). Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: a case study of the h-index in nursing. Nursing Outlook , 60 (6), 391-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2012.04.007 · DOI
  6. De Solla Price, D. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science , 27 (5), 292-306. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630270505 · DOI
  7. de Winter, J. C. F., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study. Scientometrics , 98 (2), 1547-1565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2 · DOI
  8. Delgado López-Cózar, E., Orduna-Malea, E., & Martín-Martín, A. (2018). Google Scholar as a data source for research assessment. In W. Glaenzel, H. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators . Springer.
  9. Else, H. (2018, April 11). How I scraped data from Google Scholar. Nature . https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-04190-5 · DOI
  10. Elsevier. (2018). Scopus source list (April 2018). Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/\_\_data/assets/excel\_doc/0015/91122/ext\_list\_April\_2018\_2017\_ Metrics.xlsx
  11. Halevi, G., Moed, H., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017). Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation-Review of the Literature. Journal of Informetrics , 11 (3), 823-834. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOI.2017.06.005 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Harzing, A.-W. (2013). A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics , 98 (1), 565-575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y · DOI
  13. Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics , 106 (2), 787-804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Harzing, A. W. K., & van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics , 8 (1), 61-73. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00076 · DOI
  15. Jacimovic, J., Petrovic, R., & Zivkovic, S. (2010). A citation analysis of Serbian Dental Journal using Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Stomatoloski Glasnik Srbije , 57 (4), 201-211. https://doi.org/10.2298/SGS1004201J · DOI
  16. Jacsó, P. (2010). Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar. Online Information Review , 34 (1), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521011024191 · DOI
  17. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 58 (7), 1055-1065. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20584 · DOI
  18. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics , 74 (2), 273-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0217-x · DOI
  19. Lasda Bergman, E. M. (2012). Finding Citations to Social Work Literature: The Relative Benefits of Using Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar. The Journal of Academic Librarianship , 38 (6), 370-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.002 · DOI
  20. Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. In Soviet physics doklady (Vol. 10, pp. 707-710).
  21. Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). Coverage of highlycited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a multidisciplinary comparison. Scientometrics , 116 (3), 2175-2188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-0182820-9 · DOI
  22. Minasny, B., Hartemink, A. E., McBratney, A., & Jang, H.-J. (2013). Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. PeerJ , 1 , e183. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.183 · DOI
  23. Mingers, J., & Lipitakis, E. A. E. C. G. (2010). Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics , 85 (2), 613-625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0270-0 · DOI
  24. Moed, H. F., Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2016). A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics , 10 (2), 533-551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.017 · DOI
  25. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics , 106 (1), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192015-1765-5 · DOI
  26. Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín-Martín, A., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2015). Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar. Scientometrics , 104 (3), 931-949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6 · DOI
  27. Orduna-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). Classic papers: using Google Scholar to detect the highly-cited documents. In 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators . Leiden. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/zkh7p · DOI
  28. Pauly, D., & Stergiou, K. (2005). Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI's Citation Index and Google's Scholar service. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics , 9 , 33-35. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep005033 · DOI
  29. Prins, A. A. M., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Wouters, P. F. (2016). Using Google Scholar in research evaluation of humanities and social science programs: A comparison with Web of Science data. Research Evaluation , 25 (3), 264-270. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv049 · DOI
  30. Rahimi, S., & Chandrakumar, V. (2014). A comparison of citation coverage of traditional and web citation databases in medical science. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science , 19 (3), 1-11. Retrieved from http://jice.um.edu.my/index.php/MJLIS/article/view/1779
  31. Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics , 98 (2), 1131-1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2 · DOI
  32. van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics , 51 (1), 335346. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010549719484 · DOI
  33. Van Noorden, R. (2014, November 7). Google Scholar pioneer on search engine's future. Nature . https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2014.16269 · DOI
  34. Wildgaard, L. (2015). 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. Scientometrics , 104 (3), 873-906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-0151608-4 · DOI
  35. Yang, K., & Meho, L. I. (2007). Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 43 (1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504301185 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E.
Affiliations
University of Wolverhampton (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Informetrics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-11
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
1160-1177
ISSN
1751-1577 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
OpenAlex
W2886599162
Cited by
1,990
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 278 · 2025: 325 · 2024: 288 · 2023: 277 · 2022: 279 · 2021: 285 · 2020: 174 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
103.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Informetrics (publishedVersion)
  • Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses (University of Wolverhampton) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Repository of the University of Granada (University of Granada) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RiuNet (Universitat Politècnica de València) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Ministerio de Educación, Cultura, y Deportes (Spain) (FPU2013/05863)
  • Universidad de Granada
  • CEI BioTic Granada
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, Web of Science, Scopus, citation counts, citation coverage, highly cited papers, research evaluation, bibliographic databases, subject categories

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