Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science
Open accessAbstract
Background: Researchers turn to citation tracking to find the most influential articles for a particular topic and to see how often their own published papers are cited. For years researchers looking for this type of information had only one resource to consult: the Web of Science from Thomson Scientific. In 2004 two competitors emerged – Scopus from Elsevier and Google Scholar from Google. The research reported here uses citation analysis in an observational study examining these three databases; comparing citation counts for articles from two disciplines (oncology and condensed matter physics) and two years (1993 and 2003) to test the hypothesis that the different scholarly publication coverage provided by the three search tools will lead to different citation counts from each. Methods: Eleven journal titles with varying impact factors were selected from each discipline (oncology and condensed matter physics) using the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). All articles published in the selected titles were retrieved for the years 1993 and 2003, and a stratified random sample of articles was chosen, resulting in four sets of articles. During the week of November 7–12, 2005, the citation counts for each research article were extracted from the three sources. The actual citing references for a subset of the articles published in 2003 were also gathered from each of the three sources. Results: For oncology 1993 Web of Science returned the highest average number of citations, 45.3. Scopus returned the highest average number of citations (8.9) for oncology 2003. Web of Science returned the highest number of citations for condensed matter physics 1993 and 2003 (22.5 and 3.9 respectively). The data showed a significant difference in the mean citation rates between all pairs of resources except between Google Scholar and Scopus for condensed matter physics 2003. For articles published in 2003 Google Scholar returned the largest amount of unique citing material for oncology and Web of Science returned the most for condensed matter physics. Conclusion: This study did not identify any one of these three resources as the answer to all citation tracking needs. Scopus showed strength in providing citing literature for current (2003) oncology articles, while Web of Science produced more citing material for 2003 and 1993 condensed matter physics, and 1993 oncology articles. All three tools returned some unique material. Our data indicate that the question of which tool provides the most complete set of citing literature may depend on the subject and publication year of a given article.
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
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.
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?
Comparisons of citation indexes generally rate Google Scholar as the most comprehensive.
“Comparisons of citation indexes generally rate Google Scholar as the most comprehensive.71, 72, 73”
Larger, multidisciplinary search systems seem to provide more complete citation information than smaller specialized search systems.
“larger, multidisciplinary search systems seem to provide more complete citation information than smaller specialized search systems.”
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
Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research
Seglen, P. O. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497 · Cited by 2,447 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf · Cited by 5,039 · see citing works
The present and future role of microfluidics in biomedical research
Sackmann, E. K., Fulton, A. L., & Beebe, D. J. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13118 · Cited by 2,995 · see citing works
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1378 · Cited by 2,379 · see citing works
“71-73 These comparisons support the idea that larger search systems tend to have greater citation coverage.”
BackgroundGoogle Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison
Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9 · Cited by 1,784 · see citing works
2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group
Furlan, A. D., Pennick, V., Bombardier, C., & van Tulder, M. (2009) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181b1c99f · Cited by 1,663 · see citing works
Peripheral cytokine and chemokine alterations in depression: a meta‐analysis of 82 studies
Köhler, C. A., Freitas, T. H., Maes, M., de Andrade, N. Q., Liu, C. S., Fernandes, B. S., Stubbs, B., Solmi, M., Veronese, N., Herrmann, N., et al. (2017) · Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/acps.12698 · Cited by 1,443 · see citing works
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007 · Cited by 1,356 · see citing works
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20677 · Cited by 974 · see citing works
Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus
Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21062 · Cited by 833 · see citing works
Halevi, G., Moed, H., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.005 · Cited by 488 · see citing works
Depression Screening and Patient Outcomes in Cardiovascular Care: A Systematic Review
Thombs, B. D., de Jonge, P., Coyne, J. C., Whooley, M. A., Frasure-Smith, N., Mitchell, A. J., Zuidersma, M., Eze-Nliam, C., Lima, B. B., Smith, C. G., et al. (2008) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2008.667 · Cited by 472 · see citing works
Köhler, C. A., Freitas, T. H., Stubbs, B., Maes, M., Solmi, M., Veronese, N., de Andrade, N. Q., Morris, G., Fernandes, B. S., Brunoni, A. R., et al. (2017) · Molecular Neurobiology · doi:10.1007/s12035-017-0632-1 · Cited by 449 · see citing works
The rise and rise of citation analysis
Meho, L. I. (2007) · Physics World · doi:10.1088/2058-7058/20/1/33 · Cited by 371 · see citing works
Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison
S. Adriaanse, L., & Rensleigh, C. (2013) · The Electronic Library · doi:10.1108/el-12-2011-0174 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases
Gusenbauer, M. (2022) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04289-7 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Assessing citation networks for dissemination and implementation research frameworks
Skolarus, T. A., Lehmann, T., Tabak, R. G., Harris, J., Lecy, J., & Sales, A. E. (2017) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0628-2 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions
Wright, K., Golder, S., & Rodriguez-Lopez, R. (2014) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-73 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Cognitive Impairment in Euthymic Pediatric Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Elias, L. R., Miskowiak, K. W., Vale, A. M. O., Köhler, C. A., Kjærstad, H. L., Stubbs, B., Kessing, L. V., Vieta, E., Maes, M., Goldstein, B. I., et al. (2017) · Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2017.01.008 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
García‐Pérez, M. A. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21372 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Evaluating scientific research in Italy: The 2004–10 research evaluation exercise
Ancaiani, A., Anfossi, A. F., Barbara, A., Benedetto, S., Blasi, B., Carletti, V., Cicero, T., Ciolfi, A., Costa, F., Colizza, G., et al. (2015) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv008 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Indahlastari, A., Hardcastle, C., Albizu, A., Alvarez-Alvarado, S., Boutzoukas, E. M., Evangelista, N. D., Hausman, H. K., Kraft, J., Langer, K., & Woods, A. J. (2021) · Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment · doi:10.2147/ndt.s259499 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program
Relevo, R., & Balshem, H. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.022 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Continued citation of retracted radiation oncology literature—Do we have a problem?
Hamilton, D. G. (2019) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.11.014 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Analyzing the impact of an author’s publications
Vucovich, L. A., Blaine Baker, J., & Smith, J. T. (2008) · Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · doi:10.3163/1536-5050.96.1.63 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bakkalbasi, Nisa
- Bauer, Kathleen
- Glover, Janis
- Wang, Lei
- Venue
- Biomedical Digital Libraries
- Published
- 2006-06-29
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7-7
- ISSN
- 1742-5581 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1890493318
- Cited by
- 752
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 31.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Biomedical Digital Libraries (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- E-LIS Repository (University of Naples Federico II) (acceptedVersion)
- Hispana (submittedVersion)
- 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
- citation tracking, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, citation counts, bibliographic database comparison, referencing, oncology literature, 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
