CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 131scientometrics and bibliometrics researchPsychology Research and BibliometricsWeb visibility and informetrics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Coverage and quality: A comparison of Web of Science and Scopus databases for reporting faculty nursing publication metrics

Powell, Kimberly R., Peterson, Shenita R.·2017·Nursing Outlook
DOI 10.1016/j.outlook.2017.03.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Web of Science and Scopus are the leading databases of scholarly impact. Recent studies outside the field of nursing report differences in journal coverage and quality.Purpose A comparative analysis of nursing publications reported impact.Method Journal coverage by each database for the field of nursing was compared. Additionally, publications by 2014 nursing faculty were collected in both databases and compared for overall coverage and reported quality, as modeled by Scimajo Journal Rank, peer review status, and MEDLINE inclusion. Individual author impact, modeled by the h-index, was calculated by each database for comparison.Discussion Scopus offered significantly higher journal coverage. For 2014 faculty publications, 100% of journals were found in Scopus, Web of Science offered 82%. No significant difference was found in the quality of reported journals. Author h-index was found to be higher in Scopus.Conclusion When reporting faculty publications and scholarly impact, academic nursing programs may be better represented by Scopus, without compromising journal quality. Programs with strong interdisciplinary work should examine all areas of strength to ensure appropriate coverage.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.outlook.2017.03.004

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Jacso, 2005, As we may search—Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases, Current Science, 89, 1537
  2. Scopus (n.d.). Journal title list. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/content
  3. Thomson Reuters (n.d.). Master journal list. Retrieved from http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 131

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Powell, K. R., & Peterson, S. R.
Affiliations
Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Powell, Kimberly R.
ORCID
Venue
Nursing Outlook
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-09
Volume
65
Issue
5
Pages
572-578
ISSN
0029-6554 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.outlook.2017.03.004
OpenAlex
W2593110037
Cited by
131
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
6.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Nursing Outlook (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
Keywords
Web of Science, Scopus, journal coverage, journal quality, scholarly impact, SCImago Journal Rank, h-index
MeSH terms
Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Nursing Research, Bibliometrics, Databases, Bibliographic, Databases, Factual, Journal Impact Factor

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