CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 141Building Energy and Comfort OptimizationBuilding energy efficiency and sustainabilityscientometrics and bibliometrics research

Comparative Analysis of Web of Science and Scopus on the Energy Efficiency and Climate Impact of Buildings

Open access
Cabeza, Luisa F., Chàfer, Marta, Mata, Érika·2020·Energies
DOI 10.3390/en13020409
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Although the body of scientific publications on energy efficiency and climate mitigation from buildings has been growing quickly in recent years, very few previous bibliometric analysis studies exist that analyze the literature in terms of specific content (trends or options for zero-energy buildings) or coverage of different scientific databases. We evaluate the scientific literature published since January 2013 concerning alternative methods for improving the energy efficiency and mitigating climate impacts from buildings. We quantify and describe the literature through a bibliometric approach, comparing the databases Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. A total of 19,416 (Scopus) and 17,468 (WoS) publications are analyzed, with only 11% common documents. The literature has grown steadily during this time period, with a peak in the year 2017. Most of the publications are in English, in the area of Engineering and Energy Fuels, and from institutions from China and the USA. Strong links are observed between the most published authors and institutions worldwide. An analysis of keywords reveals that most of research focuses on technologies for heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning, phase change materials, as well as information and communication technologies. A significantly smaller segment of the literature takes a broader perspective (greenhouse gas emissions, life cycle, and sustainable development), investigating implementation issues (policies and costs) or renewable energy (solar). Knowledge gaps are detected in the areas of behavioral changes, the circular economy, and some renewable energy sources (geothermal, biomass, small wind). We conclude that (i) the contents of WoS and Scopus are radically different in the studied fields; (ii) research seems to focus on technological aspects; and (iii) there are weak links between research on energy and on climate mitigation and sustainability, the latter themes being misrepresented in the literature. These conclusions should be validated with further analyses of the documents identified in this study. We recommend that future research focuses on filling the above identified gaps, assessing the contents of several scientific databases, and extending energy analyses to their effects in terms of mitigation potentials.

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 · 10.3390/en13020409

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?

  • Scopus includes a larger number of works referring to technological topics compared to other databases such as Web of Science.

    “the database Scopus was used as a reference, since it includes a large number of works referring to technological topics compared to other databases such as Web of Science [18]”

    From Recent Trends on Liquid Air Energy Storage: A Bibliometric Analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Introduction says Scopus covers more journals than Web of Science, and the Conclusions report more Scopus records in this study of building energy efficiency and climate impact. The Conclusions also say Engineering and Energy Fuels are especially covered in Scopus. These findings support the comparison in this field, but not the broader claim that Scopus has more works on technological topics generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 41

  1. Edenhofer, O.R., Pichs-Madruga, Y., Sokona, E., Farahani, S., Kadner, K., Seyboth, A., Adler, I., Baum, S., Brunner, P., Eickemeier, B., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 639-706.
  2. Minx, J.C.; Callaghan, M.; Lamb, W.F.; Garard, J.; Edenhofer, O. Learning about climate change solutions in the IPCC and beyond. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 77, 252-259.
  3. Sutherland, W.J.; Wordley, C.F.R. A fresh approach to evidence synthesis. Nature 2018, 558, 364-366.
  4. Donnelly, C.; Boyd, I.; Campbell, P.; Craig, C.; Vallance, P.; Walport, M.; Whitty, C.; Woods, E.; Wormald, C. Four principles for synthesizing evidence. Nature 2018, 558, 361-364.
  5. Haddaway, N.R.; Macura, B. The role of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 444-447.
  6. Belter, C.W.; Seidel, D.J. A bibliometric analysis of climate engineering research. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Figure 15. Detail of the co-occurrence of keywords (left: Web of Science, and right: Scopus): (a) links of the term "climate change"; (b) links of the terms "greenhouse gas", "greenhouse gases", and "greenhouse gas emissions". References
  7. Edenhofer, O.R., Pichs-Madruga, Y., Sokona, E., Farahani, S., Kadner, K., Seyboth, A., Adler, I., Baum, S., Brunner, P., Eickemeier, B., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 639-706.
  8. Minx, J.C.; Callaghan, M.; Lamb, W.F.; Garard, J.; Edenhofer, O. Learning about climate change solutions in the IPCC and beyond. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 77, 252-259. [CrossRef] · DOI
  9. Sutherland, W.J.; Wordley, C.F.R. A fresh approach to evidence synthesis. Nature 2018, 558, 364-366. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  10. Haddaway, N.R.; Macura, B. The role of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 444-447. [CrossRef] · DOI
  11. Belter, C.W.; Seidel, D.J. A bibliometric analysis of climate engineering research. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2013, 4, 417-427. [CrossRef] · DOI
  12. Hicks, D.; Wouters, P.; Waltman, L.; De Rijcke, S.; Rafols, I. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 2015, 520, 429-431. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  13. Li, J.; Hou, Y.; Wang, P.; Yang, B. A Review of carbon capture and storage project investment and operational decision-making based on bibliometrics. Energies 2019, 12, 23. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Harzing, A.W.K.; van der Wal, R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit. 2008, 8, 61-73. [CrossRef] · DOI
  15. Harzing, A.W.; Alakangas, S. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 787-804. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  16. Aguillo, I.F. Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics 2012, 91, 343-351. [CrossRef] · DOI
  17. Aghaei Chadegani, A.; Salehi, H.; Md Yunus, M.M.; Farhadi, H.; Fooladi, M.; Farhadi, M.; Ale Ebrahim, N. A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of science and Scopus databases. Asian Soc. Sci. 2013, 9, 18-26. [CrossRef] · DOI
  18. Vieira, E.S.; Gomes, J.A.N.F. A comparison of Scopus and Web of science for a typical university. Scientometrics 2009, 81, 587-600. [CrossRef] · DOI
  19. Archambault, É.; Campbell, D.; Gingras, Y.; Vincent, L. Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the web of Science and Scopus. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2009, 60, 1320-1326. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  20. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 213-228. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  21. Jacso, P. As we may search-Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Curr. Sci. 2005, 89, 1537-1547.
  22. Falagas, M.E.; Kouranos, V.D.; Arencibia-Jorge, R.; Karageorgopoulos, D.E. Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB J. 2008, 22, 2623-2628. [CrossRef] · DOI
  23. Uribe-Toril, J.; Ruiz-Real, J.L.; Milán-García, J.; Valenciano, J.D.P. Energy, economy, and environment: Aworldwide research update. Energies 2019, 12, 1120. [CrossRef] · DOI
  24. Wuni, I.Y.; Shen, G.Q.P.; Osei-Kyei, R. Scientometric review of global research trends on green buildings in construction journals from 1992 to 2018. Energy Build. 2019, 190, 69-85. [CrossRef] · DOI
  25. Pera-Moreno, M.A.; Hernandez-Escobedo, Q.; Perea-Moreno, A.J. Renewable energy in urban areas: Worldwide research trends. Energies 2018, 11, 577. [CrossRef] · DOI
  26. De la Cruz-Lovera, C.; Perea-Moreno, A.J.; de la Cruz-Fernández, J.L.; Alvarez-Bermejo, J.A.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Worldwide research on energy efficiency and sustainability in public buildings. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1294. [CrossRef] · DOI
  27. De La Cruz-Lovera, C.; Perea-Moreno, A.J.; De La Cruz-Fernandez, J.L.; Montoya, F.G.; Alcayde, A.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Analysis of research topics and scientific collaborations in energy saving using bibliometric techniques and community detection. Energies 2019, 12, 2030. [CrossRef] · DOI
  28. Mork ūnait ė, Ž.; Kalibatas, D.; Kalibatien ė, D. A bibliometric data analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods in heritage buildings. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2019, 25, 76-99. [CrossRef] · DOI
  29. Zhao, X.; Zuo, J.; Wu, G.; Huang, C. A bibliometric review of green building research 2000-2016. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2019, 62, 74-88. [CrossRef] · DOI
  30. Trianni, A.; Merigó, J.M.; Bertoldi, P. Ten years of Energy Efficiency: A bibliometric analysis. Energy Effic. 2018, 11, 1917-1939. [CrossRef] · DOI
  31. Camarasa, C.; Nägeli, C.; Ostermeyer, Y.; Klippel, M.; Botzler, S. Diffusion of energy efficiency technologies in European residential buildings: A bibliometric analysis. Energy Build. 2019, 202, 109339. [CrossRef] · DOI
  32. Díaz-López, C.; Carpio, M.; Martín-Morales, M.; Zamorano, M. Analysis of the scientific evolution of sustainable building assessment methods. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 49, 101610. [CrossRef] · DOI
  33. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523-538. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  34. Kamdem, J.P.; Duarte, A.E.; Lima, K.R.R.; Rocha, J.B.T.; Hassan, W.; Barros, L.M.; Roeder, T.; Tsopmo, A. Research trends in food chemistry: A bibliometric review of its 40 years anniversary (1976-2016). Food Chem. 2019, 294, 448-457. [CrossRef] · DOI
  35. Shukla, A.K.; Janmaijaya, M.; Abraham, A.; Muhuri, P.K. Engineering applications of artificial intelligence: A bibliometric analysis of 30 years (1988-2018). Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2019, 85, 517-532. [CrossRef] · DOI
  36. Moral-Munoz, J.A.; Carballo-Costa, L.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Cobo, M.J. Production trends, collaboration, and main topics of the integrative and complementary oncology research area: A bibliometric analysis. Integr. Cancer Ther. 2019, 18, 1534735419846401. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  37. Galagoda, R.U.; Jayasinghe, G.Y.; Halwatura, R.U.; Rupasinghe, H.T. The impact of urban green infrastructure as a sustainable approach towards tropical micro-climatic changes and human thermal comfort. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 34, 1-9. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  38. Yeung, A.W.K.; Goto, T.K.; Leung, W.K. The changing landscape of neuroscience research, 2006-2015: A bibliometric study. Front. Neurosci. 2017, 11, 2006-2015. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  39. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics 2017, 111, 1053-1070. [CrossRef] · DOI
  40. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, CD-ROM Edition; UN DESA: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
  41. Cabeza, L.F.; Chafer, M. Technological options and strategies towards zero energy buildings contributing to climate change mitigation: Systematic review. 2020; Unpublished work.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cabeza, L. F., Chàfer, M., & Mata, É.
Affiliations
  • Universitat de Lleida (ES)
  • IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute (SE)
Corresponding author
Cabeza, Luisa F.
ORCID
Venue
Energies
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-01-14
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
409
ISSN
1996-1073 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/en13020409
OpenAlex
W2999269450
Cited by
141
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11
FWCI
9.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Energies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repositori ObertUDL (University of Lleida) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (RTI2018-093849-B-C31)
  • Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA Academia)
  • Generalitat de Catalunya (2017 SGR 1537)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Building Energy and Comfort Optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Building energy efficiency and sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
building energy efficiency, climate impact of buildings, zero energy buildings, Web of Science, Scopus, database comparison, bibliometric analysis, HVAC technology, phase change materials, information and communication technologies, greenhouse gas emissions, life cycle assessment, sustainable development, renewable energy, research gaps, knowledge gaps

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