Cited by 2,696scientometrics and bibliometrics researchLibrary Science and InformationWeb visibility and informetrics
The DOI matches its Crossref record; 245 of the 246 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 7 of the 550 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World
Open accessAbstract
Nowadays, the importance of bibliographic databases (DBs) has increased enormously, as they are the main providers of publication metadata and bibliometric indicators universally used both for research assessment practices and for performing daily tasks. Because the reliability of these tasks firstly depends on the data source, all users of the DBs should be able to choose the most suitable one. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus are the two main bibliographic DBs. The comprehensive evaluation of the DBs’ coverage is practically impossible without extensive bibliometric analyses or literature reviews, but most DBs users do not have bibliometric competence and/or are not willing to invest additional time for such evaluations. Apart from that, the convenience of the DB’s interface, performance, provided impact indicators and additional tools may also influence the users’ choice. The main goal of this work is to provide all of the potential users with an all-inclusive description of the two main bibliographic DBs by gathering the findings that are presented in the most recent literature and information provided by the owners of the DBs at one place. This overview should aid all stakeholders employing publication and citation data in selecting the most suitable DB.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review compares Web of Science Core Collection (WoS CC) and Scopus as bibliographic databases, synthesizing recent literature and vendor information on coverage, quality, metrics, search, and data access. It concludes Scopus generally offers wider content and citation coverage and more convenient profiles/metrics, while WoS has deeper citation backfiles and better funding-information coverage, so suitability depends on task and subscription.
Key findings
- Scopus generally has wider overall coverage: >25,100 active source titles versus WoS CC >21,400 journals only; it indexes more books, conference material, and non-English/regional literature. In a six-source comparison, Scopus retrieved 57% of combined citations to sample documents versus WoS 52%, and Scopus covered 93% of WoS citations while WoS covered 83% of Scopus citations.
- WoS has deeper citation coverage (cited references since 1900 versus Scopus since 1970), though accessible depth can be shortened by subscription terms. WoS performs better on funding information: in medical journals, WoS funded articles were 29.0% versus Scopus 7.7%; Scopus funding-information recall was about 67%, while WoS recall/precision was often above 90% but with incomplete fields.
- Both databases share biases: overrepresentation of Natural Sciences, Engineering, and Biomedical Research; underrepresentation of Social Sciences and Humanities; insufficient book and conference coverage (e.g., both covered only 14% of book chapters in a Norwegian output study); and continued English-language bias.
- Error profiles differ: Scopus generally had fewer author-name/title errors and omitted-reference errors (3.53% versus 4.51% in WoS), but more duplicate entries and missing cited documents; WoS had more phantom citations (0.46% versus 0.10% in Scopus). Scopus author disambiguation precision rose from 98% in 2017 to 99.9% in 2019 with recall >94%; institution disambiguation precision was 0.95 for WoS OE and 0.96 for Scopus AFID, with recall 0.93 for WoS and 0.86 for Scopus; only 20% of investigated institutions were in WoS OE versus 85% in Scopus AFID.
Methods
- Design: narrative literature review/overview, explicitly not a systematic review, comparing WoS CC and Scopus.
- Data: findings from studies published in the last five years plus official information from Clarivate and Elsevier, including tables summarizing coverage numbers and impact indicators.
- Analysis: thematic comparison grouped by content coverage, source/document types, regional/non-English literature, citations, patents, funding information, publication/source/author/institution information, content quality, search/online analysis, data export, impact indicators, and bibliometric concerns.
Limitations
- The paper states it is not a systematic review; it was impossible to cover all relevant literature, only studies from the last five years were discussed, databases and interfaces constantly change, WoS subscription variations hinder reproducibility/comparison, and Open Access content coverage was not elaborated.
- Evident from the text: some conclusions rely on the author’s personal opinion (e.g., that Scopus is more convenient or better suited) and on vendor-provided information, which the paper itself notes may be subjective or exaggerated; no primary empirical data collection was performed.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Crossref · 10.3390/publications9010012
Cites
245 of 245 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable
Statistics
Nothing to recompute.
Verification
Claims the paper makes
316 Not checked yet · 84 No basis given · 54 Own interpretation · 2 Supported so far · 2 Partly supported · 1 Own method · 1 Own result · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“different bibliographic DBs sort their indexed content based on their own individual subject classification schemes”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] Wang, 2016, Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [173] Hu, 2018, Four Pitfalls in Normalizing Citation Indicators: An Investigation of ESI’s Selection of Highly Cited Papers, J. Informetr. source
- Supportedcites [176] Leydesdorff, 2016, The Operationalization of “Fields” as WoS Subject Categories (WCs) in Evaluative Bibliometrics: The Cases of “Library and Information Science” and “Science & Technology Studies”, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
The Introduction (page not supplied) contrasts Chemical Abstracts classification terms and Medline/PubMed’s MeSH with the journal-based categories discussed for WoS. The Science and technology studies section also distinguishes Scopus’s classification system from WoS subject categories. Together, these passages support the claim that bibliographic databases use different subject-classification schemes. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [177] Shu, 2019, Comparing Journal and Paper Level Classifications of Science, J. Informetr. source
Section 2.1, “Classification Systems of Science” (page unavailable), says that major bibliographic databases such as WoS and Scopus use journal-level classifications, while Chinese bibliographic databases use the Chinese Library Classification Scheme at the paper level. This supports the broad claim that databases classify their indexed content using subject-classification schemes. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Supportedcites [178] Bornmann, 2018, Critical Rationalism and the Search for Standard (Field-Normalized) Indicators in Bibliometrics, J. Informetr. source
The Introduction (page not available in our copy) describes journal sets defined by Clarivate Analytics in Web of Science and by Elsevier in Scopus as a way of categorizing content by discipline. This supports the claim that the databases use their respective subject-classification schemes. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“generally, more reliable results are obtained at higher aggregation levels (e.g., institutions or a countries) [178].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [178] Bornmann, 2018, Critical Rationalism and the Search for Standard (Field-Normalized) Indicators in Bibliometrics, J. Informetr. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says bibliometrics is especially suitable for larger units, including institutes and countries, and that correlations between citation indicators and peer assessments are usually higher for research groups, departments, or institutes than for individual publications. It does not establish the broader claim that results are generally more reliable at higher aggregation levels; it instead links reliability to standardized approaches. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“apart from differences in citation culture between disciplines, the other obvious problem in citation based evaluations and analysis is mainly caused by skewed citation distributions [178,274].”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [178] Bornmann, 2018, Critical Rationalism and the Search for Standard (Field-Normalized) Indicators in Bibliometrics, J. Informetr. source
The Introduction identifies differences in citation cultures between fields as a problem for comparisons. It also says citation data are generally skewed and that this makes arithmetic-mean-based indicators poorly suited to field-normalizing citations, supporting the attributed point about skewed distributions in citation-based evaluation. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked yetcites [274] Bornmann, 2017, Skewness of Citation Impact Data and Covariates of Citation Distributions: A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis Based on Web of Science Data, J. Informetr. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the accessibility of content might be further restricted by time-frame limitations (for instance, in the case of Lithuanian Universities subscribing WoS CC, the available data reach back only to 1990)”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“apparently they are not always accessible with a basic WoS CC subscription. For instance, our university subscribes WoS CC, but it has no access to IC and CCR.”
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“By simple experiment, it was also shown that GS can be easily manipulated using falsified data [34].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] 2014, The Google Scholar Experiment: How to Index False Papers and Manipulate Bibliometric Indicators, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus are the two main bibliographic DBs.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 1 · boosted
“Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus are the two bibliographic DBs generally accepted as the most comprehensive data sources for various purposes [10].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Zhu, 2020, A Tale of Two Databases: The Use of Web of Science and Scopus in Academic Papers, Scientometrics source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 1 · boosted
In the paper
“Consequently, institutions are often forced to choose between these data sources [15].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Dallas, 2018, Variable Bibliographic Database Access Could Limit Reproducibility, Bioscience source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Usually, the institution's choice of the DB subscription is primarily determined by the metrics that are applied in national and institutional research assessment policies [6].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Bianco, 2016, Academic Evaluation: Universal Instrument? Tool for Development?, Minerva source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, one of the main setbacks in trying to use GS for large-scale analysis is the unavailability of its data export [23,31-33].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Gusenbauer, 2019, Google Scholar to Overshadow Them All? Comparing the Sizes of 12 Academic Search Engines and Bibliographic Databases, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [31] Halevi, 2017, Suitability of Google Scholar as a Source of Scientific Information and as a Source of Data for Scientific Evaluation—Review of the Literature, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [32] Thelwall, 2021, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A Multidisciplinary Comparison of Coverage via Citations, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [33] 2017, Google Scholar as a Source for Scholarly Evaluation: A Bibliographic Review of Database Errors, Rev. española Doc. Científica
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main difference from WoS is that all Scopus content is accessible with a single subscription without possible modulations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, due to its recent introduction, relatively little is known regarding its comprehensiveness and validity as a reliable bibliographic data source, as the exploring of these features has only just began in the scientometric community [32,37-40].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Thelwall, 2021, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A Multidisciplinary Comparison of Coverage via Citations, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [37] Thelwall, 2018, Dimensions: A Competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [38] Bornmann, 2018, Field Classification of Publications in Dimensions: A First Case Study Testing Its Reliability and Validity, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [39] Harzing, 2019, Two New Kids on the Block: How Do Crossref and Dimensions Compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science?, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [40] Visser, M., Jan Van Eck, N., and Waltman, L. (2020). Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. arXiv. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Institutions mostly subscribe to only WoS CC instead of the whole WoS Platform due to the possibility to adjust subscription of WoS DB [29].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] Liu, 2019, The Data Source of This Study Is Web of Science Core Collection? Not Enough, Scientometrics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, others are highly specialized (e.g., PubMed, Medline, Compendix, etc.), which makes them unsuitable for more inclusive tasks, in particular, for the wide scope analysis and evaluation of multidisciplinary units [42,43].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] Gusenbauer, 2020, Which Academic Search Systems Are Suitable for Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses? Evaluating Retrieval Qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 Other Resources, Res. Synth. Methods source
- Not checked yetcites [43] Bramer, 2017, Optimal Database Combinations for Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews: A Prospective Exploratory Study, Syst. Rev. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the usability of data sources may also highly depend on the additional content accessibility restrictions and availability to download and export data.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Dallas, 2018, Variable Bibliographic Database Access Could Limit Reproducibility, Bioscience source
- Not checked yetcites [23] Gusenbauer, 2019, Google Scholar to Overshadow Them All? Comparing the Sizes of 12 Academic Search Engines and Bibliographic Databases, Scientometrics source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, the majority of DBs' end users are not usually aware of these limitations and how they can affect the accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility of their task's outcome [15,23].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Dallas, 2018, Variable Bibliographic Database Access Could Limit Reproducibility, Bioscience source
- Not checked yetcites [23] Gusenbauer, 2019, Google Scholar to Overshadow Them All? Comparing the Sizes of 12 Academic Search Engines and Bibliographic Databases, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, in another study focused on computer sciences, only 63% of the documents retrieved by WoS were also found by Scopus [57].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [57] 2018, Tale of Three Databases: The Implication of Coverage Demonstrated for a Sample Query, Front. Res. Metrics Anal. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, Natural Sciences and Engineering appeared to be overrepresented to a greater extent in WoS [47].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Mongeon, 2016, The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis, Scientometrics source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, although the share of conference proceedings articles in Scopus and in WoS is statistically similar (approximately 10%) [52], the majority of studies determined better coverage of conference material in Scopus when compared to WoS [26,39,53,55,57,59].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Waltman, 2016, A Review of the Literature on Citation Impact Indicators, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [39] Harzing, 2019, Two New Kids on the Block: How Do Crossref and Dimensions Compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science?, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [53] Huang, 2020, Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Implications for the Robustness of University Rankings, Quant. Sci. Stud.
- Not checked yetcites [55] 2018, Coverage of Highly-Cited Documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A Multidisciplinary Comparison, Scientometrics
- Not checked yetcites [57] 2018, Tale of Three Databases: The Implication of Coverage Demonstrated for a Sample Query, Front. Res. Metrics Anal. source
- Not checked yetcites [59] Hug, 2017, The Coverage of Microsoft Academic: Analyzing the Publication Output of a University, Scientometrics source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Especially for the reason that the exact composition of WoS DB indexes and time-frame limitations were often not clearly stated in the studies [29].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] Liu, 2019, The Data Source of This Study Is Web of Science Core Collection? Not Enough, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, all of the authors agree that the both DBs still obviously support English language publications more.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, Scopus was shown to cover even 99% of nursing journals that were covered by WoS [85].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [85] Powell, 2017, Coverage and Quality: A Comparison of Web of Science and Scopus Databases for Reporting Faculty Nursing Publication Metrics, Nurs. Outlook source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For instance, in a study where the representation of Norwegian scientific output was evaluated, WoS and Scopus were both shown to only cover 14% of book chapters [50].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] Aksnes, 2019, A Criteria-Based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science, J. Data Inf. Sci.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the extent of content overlap between WoS and Scopus was determined to be varying greatly across disciplines [40,47].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] Visser, M., Jan Van Eck, N., and Waltman, L. (2020). Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. arXiv. source
- Not checked yetcites [47] Mongeon, 2016, The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis, Scientometrics source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Scopus was identified as superior to WoS in the coverage of both non-English and regional literature of all types [49].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Thelwall, 2019, Web of Science and Scopus Language Coverage, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the absolute majority of these studies have reported better Scopus coverage of all major disciplines when compared to WoS.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Serial conference proceedings were shown to be highly overlapping between the DBs [40,52].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] Visser, M., Jan Van Eck, N., and Waltman, L. (2020). Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. arXiv. source
- Not checked yetcites [52] Moed, 2018, Trends in Russian Research Output Indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, Scientometrics source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“in a study of Norwegian scientific output coverage, Norwegian-language publications were shown to be better covered by Scopus, as compared to WoS [50].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] Aksnes, 2019, A Criteria-Based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science, J. Data Inf. Sci.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, even the most recent large-scale content analyses performed at publication level and including all major source types did not indicate a significant improvement of book coverage in both DBs.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Therefore, it is not surprising that the coverage of books and conference proceedings both in WoS and Scopus was generally determined to be insufficient, aiming to use the DBs as the data sources for analyzing or evaluating disciplines where these source types are the most prevalent [26,44,88].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Waltman, 2016, A Review of the Literature on Citation Impact Indicators, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., and Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management), HEFCE.
- Not checked yetcites [88] Ochsner, M., Hug, S.E., and Daniel, H. (2016). Assessment in the Humanities, Springer Nature. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, although the share of conference proceedings articles in Scopus and in WoS is statistically similar (approximately 10%) [52], the majority of studies determined better coverage of conference material in Scopus when compared to WoS [26,39,53,55,57,59].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [52] Moed, 2018, Trends in Russian Research Output Indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The fact that Scopus provides wider overall coverage as compared to WoS CC was confirmed multiple times, both by early and the most recent content coverage comparisons.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., and Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management), HEFCE.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the majority of journals published in other than English languages and in smaller countries, and journals representing very specific research fields, especially ones that were published by universities, were shown to have a lesser probability to be included in WoS CC.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [81] Chavarro, 2018, To What Extent Is Inclusion in TheWeb of Science an Indicator of Journal ‘Quality’?, Res. Eval. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the early studies have already shown that, in reality, this may not always be true, at least not in all subject fields [47].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Mongeon, 2016, The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis, Scientometrics source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These findings suggest that a shorter time frame of citation coverage in Scopus might be very well compensated by the wider overall coverage of content.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [48] Leydesdorff, 2016, Aggregated Journal–Journal Citation Relations in Scopus and Web of Science Matched and Compared in Terms of Networks, Maps, and Interactive Overlays, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
- Not checked yetcites [54] Burghardt, K.J., Howlett, B.H., Khoury, A.S., Fern, S.M., and Burghardt, P.R. (2020). Three Commonly Utilized Scholarly Databases and a Social Network Site Provide Different, but Related, Metrics of Pharmacy Faculty Publication. Publications, 8. source
- Not checked yetcites [55] 2018, Coverage of Highly-Cited Documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A Multidisciplinary Comparison, Scientometrics
- Not checked yetcites [59] Hug, 2017, The Coverage of Microsoft Academic: Analyzing the Publication Output of a University, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [87] Grégoire, C., Roberge, G., and Archambault, É. Bibliometrics and Patent Indicators for the Science and Engineering Indicators 2016─Comparison of 2016 Bibliometric Indicators to 2014 Indicators. Science & Engineering Indicators 2016 (SEI 2016), Available online: https://science-metrix.com/?q=en/publications/reports&page=2#/?q=en/publications/reports/bibliometrics-and-patent-indicators-for-the-science-and-engineering-indicator-0.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Scopus was shown to provide higher citation counts than WoS, even in the studies that were performed before an execution of Scopus Cited Reference Expansion Program, when the citations in Scopus were only covered up to 1996 [26,44,60].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Waltman, 2016, A Review of the Literature on Citation Impact Indicators, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., and Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management), HEFCE.
- Not checked yetcites [60] Trapp, 2016, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar Citation Rates: A Case Study of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering: What Gets Cited and What Doesn’t?, Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Additionally, it was noted that both DBs do not practice backwards indexing (except for ESCI BackFile) in WoS [55].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [55] 2018, Coverage of Highly-Cited Documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A Multidisciplinary Comparison, Scientometrics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In WoS approximately 10-12% of evaluated journals become indexed [28]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Carloni, M., Tsenkulovsky, T., and Mangan, R. (2020, August 13). Web of Science Core Collection Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=45175981.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, it was also shown that a significant share of journals ranking in highest positions in Scopus DB were not even indexed by WoS [51,58].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [51] Calvet, 2016, Elsevier’s Journal Metrics for the Identification of a Mainstream Journals Core: A Case Study on Mexico, Libres
- Not checked yetcites [58] 2015, On the Stability of Citation-Based Journal Rankings, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the recall of FI in Scopus was estimated being only approximately 67% [79].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [79] Liu, 2020, Accuracy of Funding Information in Scopus: A Comparative Case Study, Scientometrics source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“they list the top publishers that are covered in the DBs being Elsevier (the Netherlands), Springer (UK), Taylor & Francis (UK), WilleyBlackwell (USA), and SAGE (USA) [28,89].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Carloni, M., Tsenkulovsky, T., and Mangan, R. (2020, August 13). Web of Science Core Collection Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=45175981.
- Not checked yetcites [89] Elsevier (2020, August 13). Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The recall of both systems was determined to be considerably lower (0.93 for WoS and 0.86 for Scopus)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [72] Donner, 2020, Comparing Institutional-Level Bibliometric Research Performance Indicator Values Based on Different Affiliation Disambiguation Systems, Quant. Sci. Stud. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The different conclusions that were drawn from these studies may be related to the differences in the applied time frames, because, while the total number of publications in the DBs is growing steadily, the increase of non-English documents may be more volatile, especially due to the execution of content expansion programs that were focused on specific source types or regions [52].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [52] Moed, 2018, Trends in Russian Research Output Indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, Scientometrics source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“a very recent large scale comparison of six data sources has shown that Scopus retrieved 57% of all combined citations to the sample documents, while WoS retrieved 52% of the total citations.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Thelwall, 2021, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A Multidisciplinary Comparison of Coverage via Citations, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the main part of content being indexed in both WoS and Scopus was determined being published in United States, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Germany [47]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Mongeon, 2016, The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the study was confined to the journals that were produced in Latin America, Spain, and Portugal, it is probable that the inclusion of all journals into WoS may be affected by the same determined biases.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the majority of authors agree that, in the meantime, in both DBs (especially in Scopus) the coverage of FI may not be comprehensive enough for accurate and reliable analyses of funding trends in SSH and in research with strong national orientation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [74] Tang, 2017, Funding Acknowledgment Analysis: Queries and Caveats, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
- Not checked yetcites [76] Desrochers, 2016, Characterization, Description, and Considerations for the Use of Funding Acknowledgement Data in Web of Science, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [77] Liu, 2020, Funding Information in Web of Science: An Updated Overview, Scientometrics source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the differences in citation counts between WoS and Scopus were observed having been decreased by more than 40% already only a year after the initiation of the expansion program in Scopus [13].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Harzing, 2016, Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison, Scientometrics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When compared to the largest Japan funding database, the recall and precision of Scopus AUIDs were over 98% and 99%, respectively, with the majority of authors having only one AUID [122].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [122] Kawashima, 2015, Accuracy Evaluation of Scopus Author ID Based on the Largest Funding Database in Japan, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, OA journals are particularly attractive to authors pressurized for high publication productivity [158-160].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [158] Demir, 2018, Predatory Journals: Who Publishes in Them and Why?, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [159] Green, 2019, Is Open Access Affordable? Why Current Models Do Not Work and Why We Need Internet-Era Transformation of Scholarly Communications, Learn. Publ. source
- Not checked yetcites [160] Tenopir, C., Dalton, E., Fish, A., Christian, L., Jones, M., and Smith, M. (2016). What Motivates Authors of Scholarly Articles? The Importance of Journal Attributes and Potential Audience on Publication Choice. Publications, 4. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, more than 9% of journals that were discontinued in Scopus were still indexed in WoS DB [145].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [145] Cortegiani, 2020, Inflated Citations and Metrics of Journals Discontinued from Scopus for Publication Concerns: The GhoS(t)Copus Project, F1000Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The detrimental effect on the quality of research resulting from the shift from publishing in subscription-based to OA journals was, in fact, demonstrated empirically [133].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [133] 2019, The Effect of Open Access on Research Quality, J. Informetr. source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A considerable portion of mistakes in the publication metadata is caused by incorrect spelling due to the presence of language specific characters (e.g., letters with diacritics), which may be incorrectly identified by optical character recognition (OCR) systems [65,70,71].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [65] Olensky, 2016, Evaluation of the Citation Matching Algorithms of CWTS and IFQ in Comparison to the Web of Science, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
- Not checked yetcites [70] Aman, 2018, Does the Scopus Author ID Suffice to Track Scientific International Mobility? A Case Study Based on Leibniz Laureates, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [71] Demetrescu, 2018, Accuracy of Author Names in Bibliographic Data Sources: An Italian Case Study, Scientometrics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Having published in predatory journal may negatively affect the reputations of authors [157].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [157] Fernandez, 2019, Predatory Publishing or a Lack of Peer Review Transparency?—A Contemporary Analysis of Indexed Open and Non-Open Access Articles in Paediatric Urology, J. Pediatr. Urol. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“some pre-existing errors that are introduced by authors may be corrected by the publisher in the manuscript editing state or by the DBs during the data import [65].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [65] Olensky, 2016, Evaluation of the Citation Matching Algorithms of CWTS and IFQ in Comparison to the Web of Science, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Editorial style of some publishers can also favor database errors [62].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [62] Franceschini, 2016, Empirical Analysis and Classification of Database Errors in Scopus and Web of Science, J. Informetr. source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the unethical nature of predatory journals may only be noticed after a long time.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“there is still a lack of credible empirical proofs to support or deny any of the aforementioned assumptions [149].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [149] Mckiernan, 2016, How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed, elife source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this could be at least partially explained by the fact that many of OA journals are relatively new.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in both WoS and Scopus, OA journals are selected for indexing by applying the same criteria and policies as for the rest of indexed sources.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“it was shown that a considerable portion of discontinued journals in Scopus have not changed their indexing status in their webpages (whether accidentally or intentionally, aiming to attract more authors), even for several years [148].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [148] Krauskopf, 2018, An Analysis of Discontinued Journals by Scopus, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, there is no clear consensus on the OA effect on citation impact [126,129,131,152].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [126] Jokic, M., Mervar, A., and Mateljan, S. (2018). Scientific Potential of European Fully Open Access Journals. Scientometrics, 1373–1394. source
- Not checked yetcites [129] Asai, 2020, The Effect of Collaboration with Large Publishers on the Internationality and Influence of Open Access Journals for Research Institutions, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [131] Tennant, 2016, The Academic, Economic and Societal Impacts of Open Access: An Evidence-Based Review, F1000Research source
- Not checked yetcites [152] 2019, Publication Modalities ‘Article in Press’ and ‘Open Access’ in Relation to Journal Average Citation, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the major difference of OAfrom the traditional subscription-based model is that, in OA publishing, method coverage of article processing charges (APCs) is redirected from publishers to authors [130,161]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [130] Siler, 2020, The Pricing of Open Access Journals: Diverse Niches and Sources of Value in Academic Publishing, Quant. Sci. Stud. source
- Not checked yetcites [161] Asai, 2020, Market Power of Publishers in Setting Article Processing Charges for Open Access Journals, Scientometrics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this practice may be detrimental, especially in the cases when journals were discontinued due to the unethical publishing practices, as the remaining indexed publications continue to be cited and may result in a misleading interpretation of the quality of the publications.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the results of the performed related empirical studies strongly depend on the data source used [125,152,153].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [125] Maddi, 2020, Measuring Open Access Publications: A Novel Normalized Open Access Indicator, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [152] 2019, Publication Modalities ‘Article in Press’ and ‘Open Access’ in Relation to Journal Average Citation, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [153] Copiello, 2019, The Open Access Citation Premium May Depend on the Openness and Inclusiveness of the Indexing Database, but the Relationship Is Controversial Because It Is Ambiguous Where the Open Access Boundary Lies, Scientometrics source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although generally peer-review practices, layout, indexing, and other main features of OAjournals remain largely the same as for traditional subscription-based journals [149,150]”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, data errors that result in omitted citations may significantly affect the results of citation analyses.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The study, in fact, confirmed that the major part of discontinued titles may be regarded as predatory journals (77% of discontinued journals were included in Beall's black list) [145].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [145] Cortegiani, 2020, Inflated Citations and Metrics of Journals Discontinued from Scopus for Publication Concerns: The GhoS(t)Copus Project, F1000Research
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although OA journals indexed in the DBs are usually being estimated as having lower citation impact indicator values for the time being [128,152]”
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“for publications later than 1998, the situation in WoS has drastically improved.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73] Liu, 2018, Missing Author Address Information in Web of Science—An Explorative Study, J. Informetr. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the incorrect assignment of part of the last name as a first name was relatively common in both DBs (12.61% in WoS and 10.19% in Scopus).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [71] Demetrescu, 2018, Accuracy of Author Names in Bibliographic Data Sources: An Italian Case Study, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The frequencies of affiliation mistakes varied greatly among publication years, disciplines, document types, publication languages, and evaluated WoS indexes.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73] Liu, 2018, Missing Author Address Information in Web of Science—An Explorative Study, J. Informetr. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the mistakes were significantly less frequent in original articles and reviews as compared to the other publication types”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73] Liu, 2018, Missing Author Address Information in Web of Science—An Explorative Study, J. Informetr. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“authors employing this method have usually reported a certain amount of missing or not functional DOIs in both DBs [53,57,59].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [53] Huang, 2020, Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Implications for the Robustness of University Rankings, Quant. Sci. Stud.
- Not checked yetcites [57] 2018, Tale of Three Databases: The Implication of Coverage Demonstrated for a Sample Query, Front. Res. Metrics Anal. source
- Not checked yetcites [59] Hug, 2017, The Coverage of Microsoft Academic: Analyzing the Publication Output of a University, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The mistakes were determined to be more frequent in older publications (before 1970).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73] Liu, 2018, Missing Author Address Information in Web of Science—An Explorative Study, J. Informetr. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Nowadays, WoS offers two separate classification schemes: by categories and by research areas.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Carloni, M., Tsenkulovsky, T., and Mangan, R. (2020, August 13). Web of Science Core Collection Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=45175981.
- Not checked yetcites [64] Wang, 2016, Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The higher rates of omitted information were directly related to the length of the acknowledgement text.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [78] Morillo, 2017, Funding Acknowledgments in the Web of Science: Completeness and Accuracy of Collected Data, Scientometrics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the number of such journals was higher in Scopus as compared to WoS”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] Wang, 2016, Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, the presence and accuracy of Scopus indexed address information was not investigated in the study, since there is no reliable way to identify and analyze publications with missing address information in Scopus online.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73] Liu, 2018, Missing Author Address Information in Web of Science—An Explorative Study, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: There is no reliable way to identify and analyze publications with missing address information in Scopus online.
In the paper
“the frequency of full or partial FI omission in WoS was determined to be approximately 12%”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [78] Morillo, 2017, Funding Acknowledgments in the Web of Science: Completeness and Accuracy of Collected Data, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“these errors were more frequent in less popular publication types, such as letters, editorials, and conference papers”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [75] Grassano, 2017, Funding Data from Publication Acknowledgments: Coverage, Uses, and Limitations, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the journals for which the omitted address information was more pronounced, were determined to be low-impact ones.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73] Liu, 2018, Missing Author Address Information in Web of Science—An Explorative Study, J. Informetr. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When both of the situations of journal relations to categories were evaluated at the same time, in both DBs the journals weakly related to assigned category, but with strong relations to the other category were identified.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] Wang, 2016, Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“an earlier comparison of the DBs showed that errors in address information at the time were more frequent in Scopus, as compared to WoS [87].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [87] Grégoire, C., Roberge, G., and Archambault, É. Bibliometrics and Patent Indicators for the Science and Engineering Indicators 2016─Comparison of 2016 Bibliometric Indicators to 2014 Indicators. Science & Engineering Indicators 2016 (SEI 2016), Available online: https://science-metrix.com/?q=en/publications/reports&page=2#/?q=en/publications/reports/bibliometrics-and-patent-indicators-for-the-science-and-engineering-indicator-0.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“in about 22% of funded publications, at least one additional funder was included by WoS”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [75] Grassano, 2017, Funding Data from Publication Acknowledgments: Coverage, Uses, and Limitations, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As for recent publications, the problem remained more significant within Arts and Humanities.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73] Liu, 2018, Missing Author Address Information in Web of Science—An Explorative Study, J. Informetr. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the omission of country name is of the highest importance, as this part of address is often exploited in the extraction of data for bibliometric analyses or evaluations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the case of female researchers', additional surname variants may also appear due to the change in marital status [70,71].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [70] Aman, 2018, Does the Scopus Author ID Suffice to Track Scientific International Mobility? A Case Study Based on Leibniz Laureates, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [71] Demetrescu, 2018, Accuracy of Author Names in Bibliographic Data Sources: An Italian Case Study, Scientometrics source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the funders acknowledged in a publication were shown to be listed incorrectly in approximately 32% of the cases in WoS”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [75] Grassano, 2017, Funding Data from Publication Acknowledgments: Coverage, Uses, and Limitations, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“WoS was shown to have missed at least one funder in about 11% of the records”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [75] Grassano, 2017, Funding Data from Publication Acknowledgments: Coverage, Uses, and Limitations, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“while the frequency of omitted apostrophes in WoS was almost fifteen times higher than in Scopus.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [71] Demetrescu, 2018, Accuracy of Author Names in Bibliographic Data Sources: An Italian Case Study, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The analysis showed that WoS performs significantly better than Scopus, especially regarding the cases of journals with weak relations to the categories that they are assigned to.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] Wang, 2016, Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus, J. Informetr. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The issue was investigated among publications that were (co)authored with USA researchers, where a significant amount of publications only contained state information, but missed the name of the country [73].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73] Liu, 2018, Missing Author Address Information in Web of Science—An Explorative Study, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“journal lists representing certain categories provided by different DBs will most likely be different”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“at least some of the Scopus categories include non-academic papers from magazines that are classified as articles”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [190] Thelwall, 2016, Are There Too Many Uncited Articles? Zero Inflated Variants of the Discretised Lognormal and Hooked Power Law Distributions, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“in both DBs subject assignation errors mostly occur in the cases of multidisciplinary sources, which cannot be properly classified at the journal level”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“books in Scopus lack detailed classification, as they are often only assigned to broad categories, but they are not assigned to the particular subject fields”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [90] Kousha, 2018, Can Microsoft Academic Help to Assess the Citation Impact of Academic Books?, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“journals might be assigned to a certain category in one DB, but be absent from the corresponding category in another DB”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] Visser, M., Jan Van Eck, N., and Waltman, L. (2020). Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. arXiv. source
- Not checked yetcites [85] Powell, 2017, Coverage and Quality: A Comparison of Web of Science and Scopus Databases for Reporting Faculty Nursing Publication Metrics, Nurs. Outlook source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The results of publication analysis involving various types of documents could also be affected by the inconsistencies in document types between the DBs”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Waltman, 2016, A Review of the Literature on Citation Impact Indicators, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [95] Rafols, I., Molas-Gallart, J., and Woolley, R. (2016, January 1–7). Data Quality and Consistency in Scopus and Web of Science in Their Indexing of Czech Journals. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2016), València, Spain.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“all descriptive WoS CC information cannot be obtained from a single source”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“for such publications, WoS additionally provides a precedence code to be used when it is necessary to attribute only one document type”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Carloni, M., Tsenkulovsky, T., and Mangan, R. (2020, August 13). Web of Science Core Collection Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=45175981.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“less errors in subject classification were indicated in Scopus compared to WoS”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Thelwall, 2019, Web of Science and Scopus Language Coverage, Scientometrics source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“even when the dates of the last update are indicated to be very recent, the information provided is often clearly not the most recent one, especially regarding the numbers describing DBs coverage, which can confuse users in determining which information they can rely on”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Gusenbauer, 2019, Google Scholar to Overshadow Them All? Comparing the Sizes of 12 Academic Search Engines and Bibliographic Databases, Scientometrics source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“chapters of authored books in WoS were (mistakenly) indexed as individual publications”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Harzing, 2016, Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison, Scientometrics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The factual data do not always completely coincide, as separate information sources differ in their preparation and updating dates”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the amounts of certain type publications in WoS may be overestimated, as WoS assigns conference papers published in regular journals as both articles and conference papers”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] Visser, M., Jan Van Eck, N., and Waltman, L. (2020). Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. arXiv. source
- Not checked yetcites [52] Moed, 2018, Trends in Russian Research Output Indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, Scientometrics source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Elsevier provides 'Scopus Content Coverage Guide' [89] describing not only the coverage aspects of the DB, but also journal inclusion and metadata indexing policies”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [89] Elsevier (2020, August 13). Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This is particularly apparent in the case of WoS, as information may be found at several owner's websites”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [191] Matthews, T. (2020, November 25). Web of Science Group: Welcome to our Training Portal. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/home/welcome.
- Not checked yetcites [192] Clarivate (2020, November 25). Web of Science Service for UK Education. Available online: Wok.mimas.ac.uk.
- Not checked yetcites [193] Clarivate (2020, November 25). Web of Science Platform—Web of Science Group. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/webofscience-platform/.
- Not checked yetcites [194] Clarivate (2020, November 25). Scientific and Academic Research-Web of Science Group. Available online: https://support.clarivate.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/?language=en_US.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Journal misclassifications and/or assignment to multiple subject fields, especially in the cases of multidisciplinary sources, can, in turn, cause incompatible journal ranking positions between the DBs, as the same journal may appear in the top in one subject category, but in the bottom in the other.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Similar, but broader and much more detailed WoS CC descriptive document, is also provided by Clarivate”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Carloni, M., Tsenkulovsky, T., and Mangan, R. (2020, August 13). Web of Science Core Collection Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=45175981.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the same information is often presented in multiple resources”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the lists still contain very little additional information regarding the journals, as each list only provides the journal title, ISSN/eISSN, publisher name and address, and WoS subject categories”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“According to information that were provided by Clarivate Product Support, Customer Service, a small number of book series and conference proceedings, most of which were added to coverage in SCIE and/or SSCI many years ago, may also be included in JCR and have impact metrics calculated for them”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites N. Begum, personal communication, 10 September 2020
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Aiming to broaden geographical and language coverage, WoS has included several regional indexes (SciELO, KCI, RSCI, and ACI)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Large-scale bibliographic analyses are highly challenging due to the amount of the required data, since large data sets usually cannot be directly analyzed at the DBs' webinterface due to the limited online analysis capabilities.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“according to the official description of WoS CC, two specialized chemical indexes (Current Chemical Reactions (CCR) and Index Chemicus (IC) are also a part of WoS CC”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [196] Ruccolo, M. (2020, November 25). Web of Science Core Collection: Web of Science: Summary of Coverage. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/woscc/coverage.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, DOI searches in Scopus were also shown to retrieve inadequate numbers of records.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MJL does not provide any explanatory information for the lists”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, for both WoS and Scopus, cited-reference search was shown to be the most suitable when a maximal count of relevant results is required, since reference searches have retrieved approximately three-times more results when compared to keyword searches [83].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [83] Linder, 2015, Citation Searches Are More Sensitive than Keyword Searches to Identify Studies Using Specific Measurement Instruments, J. Clin. Epidemiol. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Firstly, since WoS only records acknowledgments if they contain funding information [74,76], WoS FI may not be suitable for broader explorations of other kind acknowledgements.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [74] Tang, 2017, Funding Acknowledgment Analysis: Queries and Caveats, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
- Not checked yetcites [76] Desrochers, 2016, Characterization, Description, and Considerations for the Use of Funding Acknowledgement Data in Web of Science, Scientometrics source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, in this case, the problem was mainly ascribed to illegal DOI names [169].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [169] Zhu, 2019, The Secrets behind Web of Science’s DOI Search, Scientometrics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Firstly, since WoS only records acknowledgments if they contain funding information [74,76], WoS FI may not be suitable for broader explorations of other kind acknowledgements.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [74] Tang, 2017, Funding Acknowledgment Analysis: Queries and Caveats, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
- Not checked yetcites [76] Desrochers, 2016, Characterization, Description, and Considerations for the Use of Funding Acknowledgement Data in Web of Science, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“WoS provides extensive descriptive WoS CC document with their own performed analyses of content coverage by disciplines, languages, and countries, including overlap analyses between different indexes”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Carloni, M., Tsenkulovsky, T., and Mangan, R. (2020, August 13). Web of Science Core Collection Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=45175981.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In any case, it should be noted that the recall rates between DBs may highly differ due to the different coverage of relevant content [23,27,43,57].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Gusenbauer, 2019, Google Scholar to Overshadow Them All? Comparing the Sizes of 12 Academic Search Engines and Bibliographic Databases, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [27] Badia, 2018, Identifying “Best Bets” for Searching in Chemical Engineering: Comparing Database Content and Performance for Information Retrieval, J. Doc. source
- Not checked yetcites [43] Bramer, 2017, Optimal Database Combinations for Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews: A Prospective Exploratory Study, Syst. Rev. source
- Not checked yetcites [57] 2018, Tale of Three Databases: The Implication of Coverage Demonstrated for a Sample Query, Front. Res. Metrics Anal. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there are no lists of conference proceedings available for downloading or even for browsing”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The lack of exhaustive source lists describing the coverage of other sources besides journals was also noted in literature”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“because JCR only includes journals indexed in SCIE and SSCI, this list does not represent even a full list of journal titles indexed in WoS CC”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is not always entirely clear if certain citation indexes are a part of WoS CC or are accessible only with an additional subscription”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, Scopus FI was not investigated as extensively as in the case of WoS, but it was shown that Scopus funding information suffers from the same and even greater deficiencies [79].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [79] Liu, 2020, Accuracy of Funding Information in Scopus: A Comparative Case Study, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, keyword searches were shown to be more efficient in WoS as compared to Scopus [168].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [168] Niel, 2015, Chemical Bibliographic Databases: The Influence of Term Indexing Policies on Topic Searches, New J. Chem. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“an evaluation of coverage of other source types in WoS CC is even more complicated for non-bibliometricians, especially in the cases of books and conference material, since JCR and MJL only include journal type sources (with a minor exceptions)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The precision of all searches can be increased by applying post query refinements [42].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] Gusenbauer, 2020, Which Academic Search Systems Are Suitable for Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses? Evaluating Retrieval Qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 Other Resources, Res. Synth. Methods source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there is no possibility to download a list of indexed books”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Also, according to Clarivate, the process of unifying funding agencies' names is still ongoing.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, available search options in WoS CC are highly dependent on the underlying databases used.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, for both WoS and Scopus, cited-reference search was shown to be the most suitable when a maximal count of relevant results is required, since reference searches have retrieved approximately three-times more results when compared to keyword searches [83].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [83] Linder, 2015, Citation Searches Are More Sensitive than Keyword Searches to Identify Studies Using Specific Measurement Instruments, J. Clin. Epidemiol. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, it should be kept in mind that all of the search results in WoS are only retrieved from editions and years available by the institution's subscription package.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Clarivate offers separate Master Book List (MBL) [208] website for searching book titles”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [208] Clarivate (2020, December 04). Master Book List—MBL. Available online: http://wokinfo.com/mbl/.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the content overlapping with the main WoS CC indexes is unclear and difficult to determine, since the lists of source titles that are covered in regional indexes are not provided in the MJL”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the set of sources included in the analyses differs with no clear explanation”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the composition of WoS CC and the extent of actually accessible content for users of particular institution may differ significantly from the one described by the owner”
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“FI in WoS may be incomplete with certain data fields being absent, as was already discussed earlier.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The most well-known Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and various other impact indicators, including Eigenfactor metrics (Eigenfactor Score (ES) and Article Influence Score (AIS)), are available at WoS DB [207].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [207] Clarivate (2020, November 25). InCites Indicators Handbook. Available online: https://incites.help.clarivate.com/Content/Resources/Docs/indicators-handbook-june-2018.pdf.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Yet, export to reference management tools is limited to 500 document entries at a time [217].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [217] Elsevier (2020, November 25). How Do I Export Documents from Scopus?—Scopus: Access and Use Support Center. Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/11234/kw/export/supporthub/scopus/related/1/.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“On the other hand, almost all software tools and libraries currently used for bibliometric analyses can import data extracted from WoS and Scopus [9].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Cobo, 2020, Software Tools for Conducting Bibliometric Analysis in Science: An up-to-Date Review, Prof. Inf.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This issue is even more obvious when applying JIF in subject fields where citations mature slower or are delayed, as in Mathematics, Social Sciences and Humanities [26,46,224,229].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Waltman, 2016, A Review of the Literature on Citation Impact Indicators, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [46] Mingers, 2015, A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics, Eur. J. Oper. Res. source
- Not checked yetcites [224] Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., and Thelwall, M. (2018). The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, Springer International Publishing. source
- Not checked yetcites [229] Peset, 2016, The Impact Factor as a Measuring Tool of the Prestige of the Journals in Research Assessment in Mathematics, Res. Eval. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, aiming to evaluate the quality of a journal, only its inclusion in WoS or Scopus DB is not a sufficient criterion anymore.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The inconsistency of document types that are included in JIF calculation opens the possibilities for manipulation.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Moreover, Elsevier has just recently established International Center for the Study of Research as a 'virtual laboratory' that provides free access to Scopus data for research purposes [12].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Baas, 2020, Scopus as a Curated, High-Quality Bibliometric Data Source for Academic Research in Quantitative Science Studies, Quant. Sci. Stud. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In this way, JIF also shows a certain level of discrimination against less popular publication types that, in certain disciplines, are as important as original research articles [2,26,45,46,224,225,229].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Agarwal, 2016, Bibliometrics: Tracking Research Impact by Selecting the Appropriate Metrics, Asian J. Androl. source
- Not checked yetcites [26] Waltman, 2016, A Review of the Literature on Citation Impact Indicators, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [45] Walters, 2017, Citation-Based Journal Rankings: Key Questions, Metrics, and Data Sources, IEEE Access source
- Not checked yetcites [46] Mingers, 2015, A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics, Eur. J. Oper. Res. source
- Not checked yetcites [224] Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., and Thelwall, M. (2018). The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, Springer International Publishing. source
- Not checked yetcites [225] Ranjan, 2017, Bibliometric Indices of Scientific Journals: Time to Overcome the Obsession and Think beyond the Impact Factor, Med. J. Armed Forces India source
- Not checked yetcites [229] Peset, 2016, The Impact Factor as a Measuring Tool of the Prestige of the Journals in Research Assessment in Mathematics, Res. Eval. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the export of citation analysis results is limited to 500 rows at a time [28,105].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Carloni, M., Tsenkulovsky, T., and Mangan, R. (2020, August 13). Web of Science Core Collection Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=45175981.
- Not checked yetcites [105] Clarivate (2020, September 21). Web of Science Core Collection—Quick Reference Guide. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=35888196.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the five-year window applied in the calculation of all Eigenfactor metrics (ES and AIS) makes them particularly suitable for application in Social Sciences and Humanities, where citations accrue more slowly [45].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Walters, 2017, Citation-Based Journal Rankings: Key Questions, Metrics, and Data Sources, IEEE Access source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“a subsequent study that was performed with the same set of journals did not found any journals without indicated CS value [255].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [255] Okagbue, 2020, Correlation between the CiteScore and Journal Impact Factor of Top—Ranked Library and Information Science Journals, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Moreover, the source normalization approach was shown to be effective, even at the level of pairs of journals from the same field [234].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [234] Moed, 2010, Measuring Contextual Citation Impact of Scientific Journals, J. Informetr. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the five-year window applied in the calculation of all Eigenfactor metrics (ES and AIS)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Walters, 2017, Citation-Based Journal Rankings: Key Questions, Metrics, and Data Sources, IEEE Access source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, due to the consistency between CS numerator and denominator, the CS values would often be lower than the JIF values for the same journals [175].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [175] James, 2019, CiteScore Metrics: Creating Journal Metrics from the Scopus Citation Index, Learn. Publ. source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“also accounts for the thematic affinity of the journals [242].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [242] 2012, A Further Step Forward in Measuring Journals’ Scientific Prestige: The SJR2 Indicator, J. Informetr. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the recently updated CS version, the following publication types are included: articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers, and book chapters [232].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [232] Elsevier (2020, December 05). How Are CiteScore Metrics Used in Scopus?. Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14880/supporthub/scopus/.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted that, in both JIF and CS calculations, citations to 'Early Access' and 'Article-in-press' publications (respectively) are not included.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the definitive conclusion on which of the two approaches performs better has not yet been reached.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“even after the journal is transferred from ESCI to JCR indexes, the impact indicators for a journal are calculated only if the journal manages to stay in the JCR index for three consecutive years [175].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [175] James, 2019, CiteScore Metrics: Creating Journal Metrics from the Scopus Citation Index, Learn. Publ. source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, there are some fundamental differences, mainly aimed at correcting the main limitations of JIF [175,231].”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Scopus does not separate newly emerged, regional, or newly accepted sources.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main drawback of this approach is the dependence on the subject field classification schemes of WoS or other DBs.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, WoS journal indicators cannot be applied for evaluation of journals newly included in the WoS CC.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Different publishing and citing cultures between disciplines and even subject fields make traditional journal impact indicators not appropriate for direct comparisons of journals and analysis results that were obtained from different disciplinary context.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“many of the sources that are listed in Scopus Source page do not have CS values with the indication 'N/A', without a clear explanation of the underlying reasons for the absence of metric's value.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“CS, as well as other Scopus journal metrics, is calculated for all actively indexed serial sources within all disciplines, including books series, conference proceedings, and trade publications, if at least one document in the preceding three (currently, four) years was published [175,258].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [175] James, 2019, CiteScore Metrics: Creating Journal Metrics from the Scopus Citation Index, Learn. Publ. source
- Not checked yetcites [258] Elsevier (2020, October 09). CiteScore Metrics: The Basics. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/652552/SC_FS_CiteScore-metrics-The-Basics.pdf.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“On the other hand, performance evaluation of normalization approaches also depends on the study design [185,233].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [185] Waltman, 2013, A Systematic Empirical Comparison of Different Approaches for Normalizing Citation Impact Indicators, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [233] Bornmann, 2015, Methods for the Generation of Normalized Citation Impact Scores in Bibliometrics: Which Method Best Reflects the Judgements of Experts?, J. Informetr. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Only conferences that were published in the journals or books series may be indexed in JCR and receive JIF values [86].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [86] Meho, 2019, Using Scopus’s CiteScore for Assessing the Quality of Computer Science Conferences, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Journal impact indicators that are normalized by subject field have been developed to address these limitations [178,233].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [178] Bornmann, 2018, Critical Rationalism and the Search for Standard (Field-Normalized) Indicators in Bibliometrics, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [233] Bornmann, 2015, Methods for the Generation of Normalized Citation Impact Scores in Bibliometrics: Which Method Best Reflects the Judgements of Experts?, J. Informetr. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“they do not have JIF or other journal impact metrics, which makes them inapplicable for Arts and Humanities evaluations [45,224].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Walters, 2017, Citation-Based Journal Rankings: Key Questions, Metrics, and Data Sources, IEEE Access source
- Not checked yetcites [224] Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., and Thelwall, M. (2018). The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, Springer International Publishing. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Currently, CS counts both citing and cited papers published during the previous four years as compared to two-year time frame applied in the classic JIF [232].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [232] Elsevier (2020, December 05). How Are CiteScore Metrics Used in Scopus?. Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14880/supporthub/scopus/.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“citations themselves are not equal, primarily because citations may have very different meaning, which is determined by the plethora of reasons for citing [266-268].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [266] Tahamtan, 2019, What Do Citation Counts Measure? An Updated Review of Studies on Citations in Scientific Documents Published between 2006 and 2018, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [267] MacRoberts, 2018, The Mismeasure of Science: Citation Analysis, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
- Not checked yetcites [268] Wang, 2018, A Quantitative Exploration on Reasons for Citing Articles from the Perspective of Cited Authors, Scientometrics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“journal impact indicators influence citing behavior, firstly because impact factors increase the visibility of the paper based on an assumption that journals with higher impact indicators publish papers of a higher scientific value.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [268] Wang, 2018, A Quantitative Exploration on Reasons for Citing Articles from the Perspective of Cited Authors, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [273] Tahamtan, 2018, Core Elements in the Process of Citing Publications: Conceptual Overview of the Literature, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [274] Bornmann, 2017, Skewness of Citation Impact Data and Covariates of Citation Distributions: A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis Based on Web of Science Data, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [275] Uddin, 2016, The Impact of Author-Selected Keywords on Citation Counts, J. Informetr. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Journals with higher impact indicators publish papers of higher scientific value.
In the paper
“unlike the journal indicators provided by WoS, all of the Scopus metrics and full information of indexed sources presented in their profiles are available free of charge, even without a DB subscription [51].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [51] Calvet, 2016, Elsevier’s Journal Metrics for the Identification of a Mainstream Journals Core: A Case Study on Mexico, Libres
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the growing amount of publications, it has become evident that publication counts alone cannot provide an accurate evaluation of research, institution, or researcher.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There are numerous factors affecting citation counts [270,271], which can be divided into (1) factors that are related to the paper, (2) factors related to the journal, and (3) factors related to the author [266,272].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [266] Tahamtan, 2019, What Do Citation Counts Measure? An Updated Review of Studies on Citations in Scientific Documents Published between 2006 and 2018, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [272] Tahamtan, 2016, Factors Affecting Number of Citations: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the values of mean-based indicators can be highly distorted by the presence of few highly cited publications [44,45,221,224,277-279].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., and Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management), HEFCE.
- Not checked yetcites [45] Walters, 2017, Citation-Based Journal Rankings: Key Questions, Metrics, and Data Sources, IEEE Access source
- Not checked yetcites [221] Mingers, 2017, Evaluating Journal Quality: A Review of Journal Citation Indicators and Ranking in Business and Management, Eur. J. Oper. Res. source
- Not checked yetcites [224] Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., and Thelwall, M. (2018). The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, Springer International Publishing. source
- Not checked yetcites [277] Brito, 2019, Evaluating Research and Researchers by the Journal Impact Factor: Is It Better than Coin Flipping?, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [278] Lei, 2020, Should Highly Cited Items Be Excluded in Impact Factor Calculation? The Effect of Review Articles on Journal Impact, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [279] Radicchi, 2017, Citation Success Index − An Intuitive Pair-Wise Journal Comparison Metric, J. Informetr. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This phenomenon can be well illustrated by the 80-20 rule describing that, usually, the top 20% of papers tend to receive 80% of total citations, while remaining publications are cited very scarcely, if cited at all [2,272].”
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, publication counts are only meaningful when used together with their quality measures.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This principle of calculation can be recognized as one of the main drawbacks of citation impact indicators, limiting their reliability, since individual papers published in the same journal can differ greatly in their impact, which is determined by the number of citations that they received.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In turn, papers that are published in high quality journals are cited more frequently.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [268] Wang, 2018, A Quantitative Exploration on Reasons for Citing Articles from the Perspective of Cited Authors, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [273] Tahamtan, 2018, Core Elements in the Process of Citing Publications: Conceptual Overview of the Literature, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [274] Bornmann, 2017, Skewness of Citation Impact Data and Covariates of Citation Distributions: A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis Based on Web of Science Data, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [275] Uddin, 2016, The Impact of Author-Selected Keywords on Citation Counts, J. Informetr. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The same applies in evaluations of larger entities, such as research or academic institutions and countries, since they can only be compared to those that are similar in size [2,26].”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“not all of the cited publications could be read at all by the authors [2].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Agarwal, 2016, Bibliometrics: Tracking Research Impact by Selecting the Appropriate Metrics, Asian J. Androl. source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“not all articles read are cited, although they may have had a significant impact on the study [46].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46] Mingers, 2015, A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics, Eur. J. Oper. Res. source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies covering specific disciplines or particular subject fields could appear to be less impactful on the global scale, but they may have great importance in the national context.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“nowadays the use of bibliometric indicators has greatly distanced from their intended purposes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“it is a mistake to assume that articles with zero citation have no scientific value, because they first had to go through a peer-review process to be published [46].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46] Mingers, 2015, A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics, Eur. J. Oper. Res. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the suitability of WoS and Scopus as data sources for evaluating national research is highly questionable.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the reliability of any type of bibliographic analyses or evaluations based on publication and citation data depends not only on the metrics used, but also on the choice of bibliographic data source.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, these conclusions cannot be extrapolated as a general tendency because most of these comparisons had certain limitations and differed in their design [44,276].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., and Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management), HEFCE.
- Not checked yetcites [276] Abramo, 2019, Peer Review versus Bibliometrics: Which Method Better Predicts the Scholarly Impact of Publications?, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The main reasons why metrics are favored over peer-review are: (1) they are cheaper and faster to apply than peer-review;”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Bianco, 2016, Academic Evaluation: Universal Instrument? Tool for Development?, Minerva source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“it was also observed that the correlations between metrics and expert judgements vary greatly across disciplines, application contexts, and between metrics used [44,276,280,282].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., and Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management), HEFCE.
- Not checked yetcites [276] Abramo, 2019, Peer Review versus Bibliometrics: Which Method Better Predicts the Scholarly Impact of Publications?, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [280] Haddawy, 2016, A Comprehensive Examination of the Relation of Three Citation-Based Journal Metrics to Expert Judgment of Journal Quality, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [282] Traag, 2019, Systematic Analysis of Agreement between Metrics and Peer Review in the UK REF, Palgrave Commun. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Today, they are being applied as universal quality measures, based on the underlying assumption that journal quality rank reflects the quality of publications of the researcher and, accordingly, overall research.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Journal quality rank reflects the quality of publications of the researcher and overall research.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This type of narrow-viewed evaluation may lead to detrimental consequences, since all of the research evaluation practices inevitably affect the behavior of evaluated parties.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: All research evaluation practices inevitably affect the behavior of evaluated parties.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“On the other hand, the accuracy of bibliometric DBs has improved significantly, since DBs more carefully index new content in order to avoid errors, as well as actively correct already present mistakes [66,67].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [66] Van Eck, N.J., and Waltman, L. (2017, January 16–20). Accuracy of Citation Data in Web of Science and Scopus. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI 2017), Wuhan, China.
- Not checked yetcites [67] Franceschini, 2015, Errors in DOI Indexing by Bibliometric Databases, Scientometrics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The same can be said regarding the coverage of non-English publications and sources of regional importance.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in certain cases, the time frame for accessible citation data in WoS may be even shorter than in Scopus due to the content access limitations resulting from the time frame restrictions indicated in the subscription terms.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“these variations in WoS content availability makes it very difficult to reassure a reproducibility of any analyses performed using WoS data [15].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Dallas, 2018, Variable Bibliographic Database Access Could Limit Reproducibility, Bioscience source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, indexes that are accessible through WoS CC subscription may also vary.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the ability to use DBs as a data sources for large-scale bibliographic analyses may also be hindered by certain data export and accessibility limitations [45].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Walters, 2017, Citation-Based Journal Rankings: Key Questions, Metrics, and Data Sources, IEEE Access source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Variable access to WoS content may also make an evaluation of the suitability of WoS for a particular task misleading when based on information that is provided by the DB owner.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Consequently, relatively few studies describe the performance and usefulness of these tools (e.g., [173,301]).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [173] Hu, 2018, Four Pitfalls in Normalizing Citation Indicators: An Investigation of ESI’s Selection of Highly Cited Papers, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [301] Zhang, 2018, A Bibliometric Analysis of Highly Cited Papers in the Field of Economics and Business Based on the Essential Science Indicators Database, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“some countries are explicitly not using WoS for assessments of national research, due to its lack of comprehensive coverage width [81].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [81] Chavarro, 2018, To What Extent Is Inclusion in TheWeb of Science an Indicator of Journal ‘Quality’?, Res. Eval. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The same restrictions also apply for publication data.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Despite being globally acknowledged as the most comprehensive data sources, both WoS and Scopus are not immune to errors that occur in publication metadata.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [62] Franceschini, 2016, Empirical Analysis and Classification of Database Errors in Scopus and Web of Science, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [66] Van Eck, N.J., and Waltman, L. (2017, January 16–20). Accuracy of Citation Data in Web of Science and Scopus. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI 2017), Wuhan, China.
- Not checked yetcites [79] Liu, 2020, Accuracy of Funding Information in Scopus: A Comparative Case Study, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [95] Rafols, I., Molas-Gallart, J., and Woolley, R. (2016, January 1–7). Data Quality and Consistency in Scopus and Web of Science in Their Indexing of Czech Journals. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2016), València, Spain.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“an incomplete coverage and insufficient precision and recall of WoS and Scopus institutional disambiguation systems imply that both of these systems cannot currently be fully relied on in evaluations of institution's research performance [72].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [72] Donner, 2020, Comparing Institutional-Level Bibliometric Research Performance Indicator Values Based on Different Affiliation Disambiguation Systems, Quant. Sci. Stud. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“since WoS does not provide impact metrics for these sources.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accordingly, the institution's choice of the DB subscription is primarily determined by the metrics that were applied in national and institutional research evaluation policies.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 174
- Probably not a substantial claim. 115
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“An accurate evaluation of WoS CC content coverage is highly challenging, as WoS is composed of a variety of specialized indexes and the composition of WoS CC can be modulated by different subscription terms”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [15] Dallas, 2018, Variable Bibliographic Database Access Could Limit Reproducibility, Bioscience sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Variation in access to bibliographic databases” section says Web of Science access varies by subscription and describes its specialized indexes, supporting the broader difficulty of evaluating coverage. But it describes the Core Collection as ten databases bundled together; it does not say that subscription terms change the composition of the Core Collection itself. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Supportedcites [42] Gusenbauer, 2020, Which Academic Search Systems Are Suitable for Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses? Evaluating Retrieval Qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 Other Resources, Res. Synth. Methods source
The Results section (‘Search reproducibility’) says Web of Science’s Core Collection varies significantly in scope depending on the institution’s subscription. It explains that subscriptions can include different indexes and different years of coverage within the same index, supporting the claim that its content coverage is difficult to evaluate accurately. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accordingly, even the recent studies, which were published during the last five years, were mostly focused on one or few particular aspects, mainly related to content coverage. Meanwhile many other features of the DBs, such as data quality or additional DBs functionalities and their practical use, which may also influence the suitability of the DB for a particular task, were usually only mentioned”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Yet, most of the DBs users do not have the necessary competence to make the most suitable choice and, therefore, need a trusted source of DB's descriptive information [4,25].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] Leydesdorff, 2016, Professional and Citizen Bibliometrics: Complementarities and Ambivalences in the Development and Use of Indicators—a State-of-the-Art Report, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [25] Ellegaard, 2018, The Application of Bibliometric Analysis: Disciplinary and User Aspects, Scientometrics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, while it is not arguable that comprehensiveness of coverage is essential for any task, the quality of data is also very important, especially in performing bibliometric analyses [4,40].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] Leydesdorff, 2016, Professional and Citizen Bibliometrics: Complementarities and Ambivalences in the Development and Use of Indicators—a State-of-the-Art Report, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [40] Visser, M., Jan Van Eck, N., and Waltman, L. (2020). Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. arXiv. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the two main specialized DBs-WoS and Scopus-are still considered to be the most reliable sources of bibliographic data, both for the most analyses and research evaluations, and for daily tasks.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Moreover, because DBs are continuously expanding both their contents and capabilities, the information provided in the early studies, performed more than several years ago, may have become obsolete and, thus, could be misleading [26].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Waltman, 2016, A Review of the Literature on Citation Impact Indicators, J. Informetr. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the literature is overwhelmed with various investigations and comparisons of the main bibliographic DBs, most of these studies, even literature reviews, are relatively narrow in context or only focused on a particular topic.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In these cases, the convenience and performance of the DB's web interface and provided additional functionalities may also greatly influence the preference of the DB [14,23,24].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Salehi, 2013, A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases, Asian Soc. Sci.
- Not checked yetcites [23] Gusenbauer, 2019, Google Scholar to Overshadow Them All? Comparing the Sizes of 12 Academic Search Engines and Bibliographic Databases, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [24] Okhovati, 2017, Novice and Experienced Users’ Search Performance and Satisfaction with Web of Science and Scopus, J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because WoS and Scopus both include cited references for each publication they cover, another approach frequently used to evaluate the extent of content coverage is to compare the counts of citations retrieved from the DBs based on the fact that DBs only collect citations from indexed documents. Thus, better coverage should result in higher citation counts.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In all cases, the most accurate evaluation of content coverage and quality of the DBs can only be achieved by performing a thorough large scale analysis, which requires a huge effort, adequate competencies, and is extremely time-consuming [27].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Badia, 2018, Identifying “Best Bets” for Searching in Chemical Engineering: Comparing Database Content and Performance for Information Retrieval, J. Doc. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, all relevant information regarding the DBs is usually not available in one place, which leads to the possibility that many important features could be left unaccounted for when evaluating DB's suitability.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many of them are also free and relatively new products, such as Microsoft Academic, CrossRef, ResearchGate, OpenCitations, etc. [32,39-41]. Hence, their validity is also still questionable.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Thelwall, 2021, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A Multidisciplinary Comparison of Coverage via Citations, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [39] Harzing, 2019, Two New Kids on the Block: How Do Crossref and Dimensions Compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science?, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [40] Visser, M., Jan Van Eck, N., and Waltman, L. (2020). Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. arXiv. source
- Not checked yetcites [41] Waltman, 2020, Special Issue on Bibliographic Data Sources, Quant. Sci. Stud. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, this way of obtaining information rarely is less time consuming, as the descriptions that are provided by DBs owners are spread across numerous resources, which makes it challenging to gather all relevant information and ensure its accuracy [27].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Badia, 2018, Identifying “Best Bets” for Searching in Chemical Engineering: Comparing Database Content and Performance for Information Retrieval, J. Doc. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, other authors discussed more specific deficiencies of the DBs, such as inconsistencies of journal coverage [63], the accuracy of subject classification schemes [64], missing citation information or citation links [40,65,66], incorrect and missing DOI numbers [53,67-69], duplicate entries [30], and inconsistent publication dates [53].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [63] Krauskopf, 2019, Missing Documents in Scopus: The Case of the Journal Enfermeria Nefrologica, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [64] Wang, 2016, Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [40] Visser, M., Jan Van Eck, N., and Waltman, L. (2020). Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. arXiv. source
- Not checked yetcites [65] Olensky, 2016, Evaluation of the Citation Matching Algorithms of CWTS and IFQ in Comparison to the Web of Science, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
- Not checked yetcites [66] Van Eck, N.J., and Waltman, L. (2017, January 16–20). Accuracy of Citation Data in Web of Science and Scopus. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI 2017), Wuhan, China.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Over the years, Scopus has earned its equal place as a comprehensive bibliographic data source and it has proven itself to be reliable and, in some respects, even better than WoS [10,13].”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“WoSis a multidisciplinary and selective DB that is composed of a variety of specialized indexes, grouped according to the type of indexed content or by theme.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Carloni, M., Tsenkulovsky, T., and Mangan, R. (2020, August 13). Web of Science Core Collection Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=45175981.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The main part of WoS platform is Core Collection (WoS CC), which includes six main citation indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE); Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI); Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI); Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI); Books Citation Index (BKCI); and, established not long ago-Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) [28].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Carloni, M., Tsenkulovsky, T., and Mangan, R. (2020, August 13). Web of Science Core Collection Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=45175981.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, as both WoS and Scopus are commercial and subscription based products, the worldwide recognition and use of these DBs has resulted in their high price, which makes it rarely affordable for an institution to subscribe to both of them [14].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Salehi, 2013, A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases, Asian Soc. Sci.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Thus, although Scopus also includes content from many specialized databases, such as Embase, Compendex, World Textile Index, Fluidex, Geobase, Biobase, and Medline [30], their content is integrated and equally accessible.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] 2015, A Systematic Analysis of Duplicate Records in Scopus, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Scopus is a similar multidisciplinary and selective DB, which was launched by Elsevier in November 2004 [12].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Baas, 2020, Scopus as a Curated, High-Quality Bibliometric Data Source for Academic Research in Quantitative Science Studies, Quant. Sci. Stud. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It was demonstrated that both DBs continuously increase their coverage of all source types, showing stable overall content growth [13,53].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Harzing, 2016, Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [53] Huang, 2020, Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Implications for the Robustness of University Rankings, Quant. Sci. Stud.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, another study has explored the distribution of publishers providing content to WoS and Scopus, and it has shown that the content of BkCI is from a number of publishers, exceeding the book publisher list in Scopus two times [82], but, judging by the numbers of indexed items, Scopus provides better coverage of academic books when compared to BkCI [90].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [82] Sivertsen, 2017, Scholarly Book Publishing: Its Information Sources for Evaluation in the Social Sciences and Humanities, Res. Eval. source
- Not checked yetcites [90] Kousha, 2018, Can Microsoft Academic Help to Assess the Citation Impact of Academic Books?, J. Informetr. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, it is well known that, in Computer sciences, the research findings tend to be published in conference papers [86,87], while books and text-books are more important sources in social sciences and even more so in humanities [26,46].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [86] Meho, 2019, Using Scopus’s CiteScore for Assessing the Quality of Computer Science Conferences, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [87] Grégoire, C., Roberge, G., and Archambault, É. Bibliometrics and Patent Indicators for the Science and Engineering Indicators 2016─Comparison of 2016 Bibliometric Indicators to 2014 Indicators. Science & Engineering Indicators 2016 (SEI 2016), Available online: https://science-metrix.com/?q=en/publications/reports&page=2#/?q=en/publications/reports/bibliometrics-and-patent-indicators-for-the-science-and-engineering-indicator-0.
- Not checked yetcites [26] Waltman, 2016, A Review of the Literature on Citation Impact Indicators, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [46] Mingers, 2015, A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics, Eur. J. Oper. Res. source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, the content coverage of Russian scientific literature was determined to be growing even exponentially, especially in Scopus, although higher growth rates in the coverage of conference material were determined in WoS, when compared to Scopus [52].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [52] Moed, 2018, Trends in Russian Research Output Indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, Scientometrics source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, WoS and Scopus are both concentrated on journal indexing.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Generally, the content indexed in WoS and Scopus was also shown to be highly overlapping, with Scopus indexing a greater amount of unique sources not covered by WoS [44].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., and Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management), HEFCE.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“during 2006-2016 period the share of papers in Russian-language journals in Scopus increased from 4.8% to 14.8%, while, in WoS, this percentage declined from 6.5% to 3.0% during the same period [52].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [52] Moed, 2018, Trends in Russian Research Output Indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, Scientometrics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] Visser, M., Jan Van Eck, N., and Waltman, L. (2020). Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. arXiv. source
- Not checked yetcites [49] Thelwall, 2019, Web of Science and Scopus Language Coverage, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [53] Huang, 2020, Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Implications for the Robustness of University Rankings, Quant. Sci. Stud.
- Not checked yetcites [56] Thelwall, 2018, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A Systematic Comparison of Citations in 252 Subject Categories, J. Informetr. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In 2011, the Book Citation Index (BkCI) was added to WoS CC [28]. Meanwhile, Scopus has also expanded the coverage of books by executing Book Expansion Project , which was fulfilled during 2013-2015 period, with 210,000 titles being added from selected publishers to Scopus in addition to the existing book series [89].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Carloni, M., Tsenkulovsky, T., and Mangan, R. (2020, August 13). Web of Science Core Collection Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=45175981.
- Not checked yetcites [89] Elsevier (2020, August 13). Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, increased growth rates in both DBs were mostly observed within the period of the last decade, and they were were generally determined to be higher in Scopus, as compared to WoS, most likely as a result of aforementioned content coverage expansion programs executed by Elsevier.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, a large-scale comparison performed at the journal level has shown that WoS and Scopus are both biased toward Natural Sciences, Engineering, and Biomedical Research, with Scopus offering wider coverage of all investigated broad fields, especially of Biomedical Research.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Mongeon, 2016, The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis, Scientometrics source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The difference in accessible content imposed by WoS subscription terms that differ between institutions, which makes it very difficult to compare the results from different studies, is another important limitation of works investigating WoS DB.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Scopus was shown to be indexing over ten-times more documents in Chinese than WoS.”
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Coverage of Regional and Non-English Literature · p. 9 · plain
“When compared to Scopus, WoS indexes more documents in Spanish and Portuguese, also Catalan, Croatian, Malay, Norwegian, and Turkish [49].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Thelwall, 2019, Web of Science and Scopus Language Coverage, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [87] Grégoire, C., Roberge, G., and Archambault, É. Bibliometrics and Patent Indicators for the Science and Engineering Indicators 2016─Comparison of 2016 Bibliometric Indicators to 2014 Indicators. Science & Engineering Indicators 2016 (SEI 2016), Available online: https://science-metrix.com/?q=en/publications/reports&page=2#/?q=en/publications/reports/bibliometrics-and-patent-indicators-for-the-science-and-engineering-indicator-0.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Coverage of Regional and Non-English Literature · p. 9 · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Over the years, both Scopus and WoS were repeatedly shown to be biased toward sources that were published in the English language and providing relatively poor coverage of regional literature.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Thelwall, 2019, Web of Science and Scopus Language Coverage, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [53] Huang, 2020, Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Implications for the Robustness of University Rankings, Quant. Sci. Stud.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In WoS, conference papers are indexed in a separate Conference Citation Index, which was included in WoS CC in 2011 [28]. In Scopus conferences are indexed together with the rest of content, and not long ago the coverage of conferences in Scopus was expanded by Conference Expansion Program, which ran from 2011 to 2014 [89].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Carloni, M., Tsenkulovsky, T., and Mangan, R. (2020, August 13). Web of Science Core Collection Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=45175981.
- Not checked yetcites [89] Elsevier (2020, August 13). Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Differently than WoS, Scopus indexes trade publications, but do not cover book reviews and meeting abstracts, which are indexed in WoS [28,40,89].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Carloni, M., Tsenkulovsky, T., and Mangan, R. (2020, August 13). Web of Science Core Collection Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=45175981.
- Not checked yetcites [40] Visser, M., Jan Van Eck, N., and Waltman, L. (2020). Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. arXiv. source
- Not checked yetcites [89] Elsevier (2020, August 13). Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the main criteria in both DBs are the same: the source must be peer-reviewed, published in a timely manner, comply with editorial standards and certain citation thresholds indicating its impact.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Baas, 2020, Scopus as a Curated, High-Quality Bibliometric Data Source for Academic Research in Quantitative Science Studies, Quant. Sci. Stud. source
- Not checked yetcites [82] Sivertsen, 2017, Scholarly Book Publishing: Its Information Sources for Evaluation in the Social Sciences and Humanities, Res. Eval. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“from the perspective of universalistic criteria, it was observed that complying with the editorial standards does not guarantee the inclusion in WoS, while the quality of journal impact may have a greater influence [81].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [81] Chavarro, 2018, To What Extent Is Inclusion in TheWeb of Science an Indicator of Journal ‘Quality’?, Res. Eval. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, other authors have not determined any significant differences in the quality of journals that were indexed in both DBs [58,85].”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Although Scopus indexed the highest number of articles in investigated journals, it retrieved the lowest share of FAs (only 7.7%), while, in WoS, the share of FAs was 29.0% [80].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [80] Kokol, 2018, Discrepancies among Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed Coverage of Funding Information in Medical Journal Articles, J. Med. Libr. Assoc. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but this may be attributed to the wider Scopus coverage.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“both of the systems provide adequate levels of precision (0.95 for WoS OE and 0.96 for Scopus AFID)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [72] Donner, 2020, Comparing Institutional-Level Bibliometric Research Performance Indicator Values Based on Different Affiliation Disambiguation Systems, Quant. Sci. Stud. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This may suggest that both DBs could be biased against sources published by universities when considering their inclusion.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Additionally, the linguistic criterion exists, requiring abstracts and titles to be written in English language, and the importance of content's international relevance with references being listed in Roman script is clearly stated [12,82].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Baas, 2020, Scopus as a Curated, High-Quality Bibliometric Data Source for Academic Research in Quantitative Science Studies, Quant. Sci. Stud. source
- Not checked yetcites [82] Sivertsen, 2017, Scholarly Book Publishing: Its Information Sources for Evaluation in the Social Sciences and Humanities, Res. Eval. source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Sources that are already indexed are being reevaluated annually. After reevaluation, sources may be discontinued (removed) or suppressed. These measures could be applied if the source fails to meet certain indexing criteria, e.g., when journal self-citation patterns drastically increase and exceed the established threshold, the irregularities in publishing are determined or unethical publishing”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [138] Clarivate (2020, November 25). Web of Science Journal Citation Reports: Suppression Policy. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/jcr-suppression-policy-2020.pdf.
- Not checked yetcites [143] Holland, K., Brimblecombe, P., Meester, W., and Steiginga, S. (2020, November 26). The Importance of High-Quality Content: Curation and Re- Evaluation in Scopus. Elsevier. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence/resource-library/scopus-high-quality-content.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“only 20% of investigated institutions (445) were located in WoS OE, which was mainly attributed to the aforementioned fact that WoS OE does not cover non-university research institutes. Meanwhile, in the Scopus AFID system, 85% of institutions were located [72].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [72] Donner, 2020, Comparing Institutional-Level Bibliometric Research Performance Indicator Values Based on Different Affiliation Disambiguation Systems, Quant. Sci. Stud. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It was observed that the unique sources that were indexed by Scopus, but not by WoS, had lower citation impact values [57]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [57] 2018, Tale of Three Databases: The Implication of Coverage Demonstrated for a Sample Query, Front. Res. Metrics Anal. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Although the overall number of patents indexed in Scopus is smaller than in WoS, they are equally accessible with a subscription as the rest of the content of Scopus DB. That is not the case in WoS, as DWPI is not a part of WoS CC and, therefore, patent information is not accessible through the basic WoS CC subscription [40].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] Visser, M., Jan Van Eck, N., and Waltman, L. (2020). Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. arXiv. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the most recent comparative studies between WoS and Scopus have shown that WoS performs much better than Scopus in both coverage and accuracy of FI [79,80].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [79] Liu, 2020, Accuracy of Funding Information in Scopus: A Comparative Case Study, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [80] Kokol, 2018, Discrepancies among Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed Coverage of Funding Information in Medical Journal Articles, J. Med. Libr. Assoc. source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“although OA publishing is very beneficial as free access makes scientific researches more visible, transparent, and reproducible, and also shortens the time required for publication to be available online, the unintended, yet possible, OA effects on research and journal quality have become questioned [133].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [133] 2019, The Effect of Open Access on Research Quality, J. Informetr. source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while, in Scopus, the exact percentage is not declared, but is most certainly higher and likely contributes to a wider Scopus content coverage.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“WoS may appear to be more suitable for large-scale citation analyses, as it covers citations up to 1900, while, in Scopus, citation coverage was only extended to 1970 [89].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [89] Elsevier (2020, August 13). Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“in some cases (mostly in Scopus), the removal of a journal from the DB may result in the entire removal of previously indexed papers from this journal, while, in other cases (mostly on WoS), previously indexed papers are not necessarily removed [62].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [62] Franceschini, 2016, Empirical Analysis and Classification of Database Errors in Scopus and Web of Science, J. Informetr. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“all of the discrepancies in the publication metadata, source information, or other inconsistencies occurring in the DBs not only complicate analysis and other tasks, but can also negatively affect the accuracy and reliability of the obtained results [4,61,95].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] Leydesdorff, 2016, Professional and Citizen Bibliometrics: Complementarities and Ambivalences in the Development and Use of Indicators—a State-of-the-Art Report, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [61] Franceschini, 2015, Influence of Omitted Citations on the Bibliometric Statistics of the Major Manufacturing Journals, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [95] Rafols, I., Molas-Gallart, J., and Woolley, R. (2016, January 1–7). Data Quality and Consistency in Scopus and Web of Science in Their Indexing of Czech Journals. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2016), València, Spain.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“although the wider inclusion of journals into Scopus is also associated with the higher number of journals being removed, the overall proportion of 'short-lived' journals that have been included and excluded from coverage in a relatively short period appears to be higher in WoS [58].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [58] 2015, On the Stability of Citation-Based Journal Rankings, J. Informetr. source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Generally, a high quality of the journal is perceived as its inclusion in WoS and Scopus, because these DBs allegedly only index the highest quality sources carefully selected according to strict selection procedures [134].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [134] Dorsch, I., Askeridis, J.M., and Stock, W.G. (2018). Truebounded, Overbounded, or Underbounded? Scientists’ Personal Publication Lists versus Lists Generated through Bibliographic Information Services. Publications, 6. source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“OAjournals are only published in electronic format shortening the time delay from submission to publishing.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“these artificial journals have evolved and they even manage to pass the selection process of the major bibliographic, as well as OA, DBs [145,150,157,158,166]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [145] Cortegiani, 2020, Inflated Citations and Metrics of Journals Discontinued from Scopus for Publication Concerns: The GhoS(t)Copus Project, F1000Research
- Not checked yetcites [150] Shen, 2015, “Predatory” Open Access: A Longitudinal Study of Article Volumes and Market Characteristics, BMC Med. source
- Not checked yetcites [157] Fernandez, 2019, Predatory Publishing or a Lack of Peer Review Transparency?—A Contemporary Analysis of Indexed Open and Non-Open Access Articles in Paediatric Urology, J. Pediatr. Urol. source
- Not checked yetcites [158] Demir, 2018, Predatory Journals: Who Publishes in Them and Why?, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [166] Björk, B.C., Kanto-Karvonen, S., and Harviainen, J.T. (2020). How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited. Publications, 8. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Thus, the validity of measuring the quality of OA journals by citations and impact indicators may seem questionable [128].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [128] Wei, 2020, Research on Impact Evaluation of Open Access Journals, Scientometrics source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Indeed, many studies have demonstrated that OA content attracts more citations [129,133,153-155], although others did not observe significant OA advantage in citation impact [156,157].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [129] Asai, 2020, The Effect of Collaboration with Large Publishers on the Internationality and Influence of Open Access Journals for Research Institutions, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [133] 2019, The Effect of Open Access on Research Quality, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [153] Copiello, 2019, The Open Access Citation Premium May Depend on the Openness and Inclusiveness of the Indexing Database, but the Relationship Is Controversial Because It Is Ambiguous Where the Open Access Boundary Lies, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [154] Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J.P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., Farley, A., West, J., and Haustein, S. (2018). The State of OA: A Large-Scale Analysis of the Prevalence and Impact of Open Access Articles. PeerJ, 6. source
- Not checked yetcites [155] Wang, 2015, The Open Access Advantage Considering Citation, Article Usage and Social Media Attention, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [156] Holmberg, 2020, Do Articles in Open Access Journals Have More Frequent Altmetric Activity than Articles in Subscription - Based Journals? An Investigation of the Research Output of Finnish Universities, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [157] Fernandez, 2019, Predatory Publishing or a Lack of Peer Review Transparency?—A Contemporary Analysis of Indexed Open and Non-Open Access Articles in Paediatric Urology, J. Pediatr. Urol. source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in January 2018, Elsevier discontinued indexing of 424 journals in Scopus, indicating 'publication concerns' and, less often, 'metrics' as the reason for discontinuation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In 2012, Jeffrey Beall composed and published a list of nearly 50 criteria for identifying predatory publishing, and continuously updates these criteria and an index of publishers as well as individual journals fulfilling such criteria [162].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [162] Beall, J. (2020, November 25). Criteria for Determining Predatory Publishers. Available online: https://beallslist.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/criteria-2015.pdf.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“it can be argued that the OA citation advantage may be more related to the free access to content, and less to the actual quality of published research [153]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [153] Copiello, 2019, The Open Access Citation Premium May Depend on the Openness and Inclusiveness of the Indexing Database, but the Relationship Is Controversial Because It Is Ambiguous Where the Open Access Boundary Lies, Scientometrics source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“since the main consequence of all errors in publication metadata is missing or incorrect links between citing and cited papers in the DB, which leads to missing citations [61,62,65,66].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [61] Franceschini, 2015, Influence of Omitted Citations on the Bibliometric Statistics of the Major Manufacturing Journals, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [62] Franceschini, 2016, Empirical Analysis and Classification of Database Errors in Scopus and Web of Science, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [65] Olensky, 2016, Evaluation of the Citation Matching Algorithms of CWTS and IFQ in Comparison to the Web of Science, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
- Not checked yetcites [66] Van Eck, N.J., and Waltman, L. (2017, January 16–20). Accuracy of Citation Data in Web of Science and Scopus. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI 2017), Wuhan, China.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, there is no common definition allowing for clearly distinguishing between predatory and credible OA publishing [164].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [164] Tsigaris, 2019, Predatory and Exploitative Behaviour in Academic Publishing: An Assessment, J. Acad. Librariansh. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For instance, the APC charges of predatory journals are usually much lower when compared with the APCs applied by credible OA journals. Additionally, often authors are requested to pay APC only after the acceptance of their manuscript. Other features include the absence or a questionable location and composition of journal editorial boards, as their members are often lacking academic competencies.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [131] Tennant, 2016, The Academic, Economic and Societal Impacts of Open Access: An Evidence-Based Review, F1000Research source
- Not checked yetcites [150] Shen, 2015, “Predatory” Open Access: A Longitudinal Study of Article Volumes and Market Characteristics, BMC Med. source
- Not checked yetcites [157] Fernandez, 2019, Predatory Publishing or a Lack of Peer Review Transparency?—A Contemporary Analysis of Indexed Open and Non-Open Access Articles in Paediatric Urology, J. Pediatr. Urol. source
- Not checked yetcites [158] Demir, 2018, Predatory Journals: Who Publishes in Them and Why?, J. Informetr. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Today, there are many publishers and journals that exploit OA model and its attractiveness for authors in order to collect APCs, but they are highly questionable regarding peer-review practices and overall trustworthiness.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although these criteria are often considered to be controversial [164], it was shown that predatory journals usually fulfilled several of the criteria outlined by Beall [150,165].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [164] Tsigaris, 2019, Predatory and Exploitative Behaviour in Academic Publishing: An Assessment, J. Acad. Librariansh. source
- Not checked yetcites [150] Shen, 2015, “Predatory” Open Access: A Longitudinal Study of Article Volumes and Market Characteristics, BMC Med. source
- Not checked yetcites [165] Manca, 2017, The Surge of Predatory Open-Access in Neurosciences and Neurology, Neuroscience source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Predatory journals usually exploit names and other details, even webpages of credible journals.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Errors that occur in the DBs may be divided into two main groups, depending on their origin: pre-existing errors, which are made by authors/publishers/editors in preparation and publication of the manuscripts; and, database errors, which are introduced by the DB due to inaccuracies occurring in data uploading processes, such as transcription errors or omitted data.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A recent large scale analysis has shown that, although these mistakes are present in both DBs, but, in Scopus, frequencies are lower for almost all error types in author names, except for the cases where part of the first name is being mistakenly assigned to the last name, which appeared in fewer than 1% of Scopus entries, while, in WoS, were not detected at all.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [71] Demetrescu, 2018, Accuracy of Author Names in Bibliographic Data Sources: An Italian Case Study, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“various other mistakes in WoS FI were determined, such as inconsistent registering of co-funded grants or multiple grants being assigned to the same funder”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [78] Morillo, 2017, Funding Acknowledgments in the Web of Science: Completeness and Accuracy of Collected Data, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“in both DBs in almost all last names (approx. 95%), containing diacritics (only approx. 1% of investigated names contained this feature), diacritics were omitted, but none of the diacritics were incorrectly imported [71].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [71] Demetrescu, 2018, Accuracy of Author Names in Bibliographic Data Sources: An Italian Case Study, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the situation of journals showing strong relations to the categories that they are not assigned to was less pronounced in both DBs, and the difference between WoS and Scopus was far less noticeable”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] Wang, 2016, Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“classification schemes applied in both WoS and Scopus lack documentation adequately describing the methodology used to construct them, thus making their use for bibliometric analyses problematic”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] Wang, 2016, Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus, J. Informetr. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Scopus uses classification of two levels. All of the sources are divided into four major disciplines: Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Health Sciences, and Social Sciences and Humanities. These disciplines are subdivided into 27 categories, which are further broken down into more than 300 subject fields, based on All Science Journal Classification (ASJC)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] Wang, 2016, Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“for the remaining publications with missing address information in WoS, the information was also not declared in the publications themselves, which was probably due to the different editorial policies of journals [73].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73] Liu, 2018, Missing Author Address Information in Web of Science—An Explorative Study, J. Informetr. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“although, in both DBs, incomplete and mistyped last names were quite rare (rarely exceeding 1%), approximately two-times more of these mistakes were identified in WoS when compared to Scopus”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [71] Demetrescu, 2018, Accuracy of Author Names in Bibliographic Data Sources: An Italian Case Study, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Spelling mistakes mostly occur in the publication title, author names, and institutional affiliations.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not all of the mistakes in author names are being caused by the DBs, since the author himself/herself can introduce spelling mistakes or may decide to use different, yet valid, name variants in different publications.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The study showed that more than one-fifth of the publications in WoS lacked address information, while full-text analyses have revealed that about 40% of the articles actually had at least a partial address information listed, and a part of investigated publications had full address information, but, for some reason, it was not indexed by WoS.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73] Liu, 2018, Missing Author Address Information in Web of Science—An Explorative Study, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a given funder was almost always included in the FO subfield, while specific grant information appeared in only about half of the entries”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [78] Morillo, 2017, Funding Acknowledgments in the Web of Science: Completeness and Accuracy of Collected Data, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the reliability of the results that were obtained from different DBs may be affected not only by the incompatible classification schemes, but also by a questionable assignation of indexed sources to the subject fields within the DBs”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] Wang, 2016, Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus, J. Informetr. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This becomes problematic when data from both sources are used or compared, since the large-scale analyses usually involve the aggregation of data from multiple disciplines and subject fields highly differing in publication and citation practices, which, in turn, requires classifying the data under a common classification scheme.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although authors have determined that address information may also be missing in Scopus, the extent of the issue could not be assessed reliably [73].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73] Liu, 2018, Missing Author Address Information in Web of Science—An Explorative Study, J. Informetr. source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, the first and last names might be misplaced due to the editorial style of the journal”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“both WoS and Scopus classification schemes are generally regarded as being far from perfect, although their empirical comparisons are very sparse”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] Wang, 2016, Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clarivate and Elsevier both provide extensive information describing WoS and Scopus DBs, including not only content coverage, but also all additional tools, features, and indexing policies of DBs.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Clarivate also provides various fact sheets and reference guides that are available for downloading from LibGuides (and other) sites”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [195] Clarivate (2020, November 26). Web of Science Core Collection: Quick Reference Cards (PDF). Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/woscc/guides.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“journals in Scopus are usually assigned with a higher number of categories, and there are significantly more 'multidisciplinary' categories in Scopus classification when compared to WoS”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In both DBs, journals are often being assigned to multidisciplinary categories or with more than one subject field, but these practices were much more frequent in Scopus than in WoS.”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Both of the documents are available at LibGuides site”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [191] Matthews, T. (2020, November 25). Web of Science Group: Welcome to our Training Portal. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/home/welcome.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“descriptive information is scattered across a multitude of information resources, which makes it very difficult and time-consuming to gather all of the relevant facts and characteristics that are necessary to create an overview of DBs and assess their suitability for a particular task”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Some cases of such double assignment were also noticed in Scopus, but the occurrence of this error was estimated to be very low”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [62] Franceschini, 2016, Empirical Analysis and Classification of Database Errors in Scopus and Web of Science, J. Informetr. source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The most recent version currently available for downloading at Elsevier webpage [146] and at the Scopus web-interface was last updated in January 2020.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [146] Elsevier (2020, November 25). Content—How Scopus Works. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the study only investigated journals with more than 100 citations, which might result in the inaccurate evaluation of small subject categories covering less popular and more difficult to assign subject fields”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“since both WoS and Scopus are commercial DBs and major competitors, their vendors are mostly interested in promoting their product”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although Elsevier provides fewer descriptive documents, but more detailed descriptions of newly implemented features, including visual examples, are also provided in Scopus Blog”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [204] Elsevier (2020, November 25). Product Releases | Elsevier Scopus Blog. Available online: https://blog.scopus.com/product-releases.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“one can argue that the higher numbers of inaccuracies determined in Scopus might be related to the higher numbers of Scopus journals included in the study due to the wider Scopus coverage, but the differences in DBs' coverage were not accounted for”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] Wang, 2016, Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus, J. Informetr. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“both DBs' owners also offer visual training materials and organize webinars, explaining the most effective use of their products”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [205] Elsevier (2020, November 25). Scopus tutorials—Scopus: Access and Use Support Center. Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14799/kw/export/supporthub/scopus/related/1/.
- Not checked yetcites [206] Clarivate (2020, November 25). Web of Science-Videos. Available online: https://videos.webofsciencegroup.com/.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the last version available was updated on July 2018”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Carloni, M., Tsenkulovsky, T., and Mangan, R. (2020, August 13). Web of Science Core Collection Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=45175981.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These inconsistencies may occur due to the fact that DBs differ by the document types that they index and by the classification of the documents, therefore some documents from the same source are present in one DB, but not in the other”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [59] Hug, 2017, The Coverage of Microsoft Academic: Analyzing the Publication Output of a University, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [95] Rafols, I., Molas-Gallart, J., and Woolley, R. (2016, January 1–7). Data Quality and Consistency in Scopus and Web of Science in Their Indexing of Czech Journals. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2016), València, Spain.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“General information regarding Scopus is available at Elsevier website”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [202] Elsevier (2020, November 25). About Scopus—Abstract and citation database. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“while generally high correlation between journal ranks between WoS and Scopus were observed to be high, considerable variations in rank for individual journals were also noticed”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [48] Leydesdorff, 2016, Aggregated Journal–Journal Citation Relations in Scopus and Web of Science Matched and Compared in Terms of Networks, Maps, and Interactive Overlays, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
- Not checked yetcites [58] 2015, On the Stability of Citation-Based Journal Rankings, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [181] Campanario, 2018, Are Leaders Really Leading? Journals That Are First in Web of Science Subject Categories in the Context of Their Groups, Scientometrics source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“in analyses by document types these publications would be counted twice, while citation counts per publication might decrease”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Waltman, 2016, A Review of the Literature on Citation Impact Indicators, J. Informetr. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the information about Scopus is more concentrated and practically all of the features are clearly explained at the Scopus Access and Use Support Center”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [203] Elsevier (2020, November 25). Scopus: Access and use Support Center-Home. Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/home/supporthub/scopus/.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Similar extensive information describing the indicators implemented in WoS and additional features is also provided in the 'Indicators Handbook'”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [207] Clarivate (2020, November 25). InCites Indicators Handbook. Available online: https://incites.help.clarivate.com/Content/Resources/Docs/indicators-handbook-june-2018.pdf.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which may be accessible with the basic WoS CC subscription, but the terms of their accessibility are not explained”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this information is not mentioned in any provided JCR description”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there are no explanations provided regarding such cases”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clarivate annually provides a full list of journals included in JCR where full and abbreviated journal titles, country/region, and inclusion to SSCI or SCIE indexes are indicated”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The downloadable lists that were provided at the MJL website have only recently been improved from unnumbered journal tables in PFD format [47], which were very inconvenient to analyze and compare and, currently, all of the lists are provided in CSV format.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Mongeon, 2016, The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“although ESCI is a part of WoS CC, ESCI BackFile covering literature back to 2005 [211] is not included into basic subscription and it has to be purchased separately”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [211] Clarivate (2020, November 25). Emerging Sources Citation Index Backfile (2005–2014). Available online: https://clarivate.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/M255-Crv_SAR_ESCI-Individual-infographic-002.pdf.
- Not checked yetcites [55] 2018, Coverage of Highly-Cited Documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A Multidisciplinary Comparison, Scientometrics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“according to Clarivate, books are integrated within other indexes”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [196] Ruccolo, M. (2020, November 25). Web of Science Core Collection: Web of Science: Summary of Coverage. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/woscc/coverage.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“in Scopus DB, the full lists of source titles (including both currently active and discontinued titles) are provided and they can be downloaded in an Excel file format at Scopus Source page (requires user login) [115], and at Elsevier website (registration is not required) [146]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [115] Scopus (2020, November 26). Scopus preview—Sources. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/sources.uri?zone=TopNavBar&origin=SearchAffiliationLookup.
- Not checked yetcites [146] Elsevier (2020, November 25). Content—How Scopus Works. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, in WoS, only publication titles and journal names are linked to the publication's and journal's details pages, respectively. Yet, in the case of source titles, this only applies for journals that are included in JCR [114].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [114] Clarivate (2020, November 25). Journal Citation Reports—Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=48842741.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, when investigating acknowledgements to libraries in WoS indexed papers, WoS FT search only retrieved 56% of articles actually having that information, and only if funding was mentioned [104].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [104] Hubbard, 2020, Acknowledgment of Libraries in the Journal Literature: An Exploratory Study, J. Data Inf. Sci.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A brief description of indexes, including coverage extent and time frame, content providers, and the main subject fields covered (for most of the indexes), can be accessed from WoS website [193], and also at additional sites [209,210], as well as via the WoS 'Help' directory.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [193] Clarivate (2020, November 25). Web of Science Platform—Web of Science Group. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/webofscience-platform/.
- Not checked yetcites [209] Matthews, T. (2020, December 04). Regional Citation Indexes. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/webofscienceplatform/rci.
- Not checked yetcites [210] Matthews, T. (2020, November 25). Web of Science: Direct Links: Home. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/c.php?g=648493&p=4547878.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, in Scopus there are no such limitations as all content of the DB is subscribed as a whole product by a single type subscription [53].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [53] Huang, 2020, Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Implications for the Robustness of University Rankings, Quant. Sci. Stud.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The only exception is the case of Cited Reference search, which does not depend on the subscription type, since 'Citing Articles' counts reflects citations from all years and all editions of the WoS CC-even of those that are not subscribed [105].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [105] Clarivate (2020, September 21). Web of Science Core Collection—Quick Reference Guide. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=35888196.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the book search in the MBL may not be limited only to WoS CC indexes, and it is not clear whether content access restrictions that are defined by subscription terms are relevant to the search”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The additional information, including citation metrics, peer review details, open access information, and more, can be found at journals' profile pages, but it can only be viewed and collected by searching journals manually”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Badia, 2018, Identifying “Best Bets” for Searching in Chemical Engineering: Comparing Database Content and Performance for Information Retrieval, J. Doc. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The amount of journals indexed in the main bibliographic DBs has significantly increased and is still growing [220].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [220] Gu, 2016, Recent Trends in Academic Journal Growth, Scientometrics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, since both WoS and Scopus are commercial, their content is protected by restricting access to raw data [42], and access to their APIs usually requires additional payment [32].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] Gusenbauer, 2020, Which Academic Search Systems Are Suitable for Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses? Evaluating Retrieval Qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 Other Resources, Res. Synth. Methods source
- Not checked yetcites [32] Thelwall, 2021, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A Multidisciplinary Comparison of Coverage via Citations, Scientometrics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Consequently, over twenty different bibliometric indicators are currently available, and new versions or alternative metrics are still being actively developed [26].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Waltman, 2016, A Review of the Literature on Citation Impact Indicators, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Another possibility for analyzing larger data sets is to use additional online tools, such as InCites (for WoS data) and SciVal (for Scopus data) [26,219].”
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“JIF was developed by Eugene Garfield more than half a century ago [223] and it was originally intended to define the quality of journals to provide high quality indexed content, and for publication or subscription purposes.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [223] Garfield, 1955, Citation Indexes for Science: A New Dimension in Documentatio through Association of Ideas, Science source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“JIF values can be deliberately distorted by publishing more reviews, which are more highly cited than regular articles, or by publishing case reports, letters to editors, and book reviews, which are being cited, but not included in the total paper count in the JIF denominator.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, probably the most debated feature of JIF is the inconsistency of document types included in its numerator and denominator.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Raw data from both DBs can be further analyzed by various bibliometric software tools. However, this approach, as well as using APIs for data retrieval, requires some kind of programming skills [9,42].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Cobo, 2020, Software Tools for Conducting Bibliometric Analysis in Science: An up-to-Date Review, Prof. Inf.
- Not checked yetcites [42] Gusenbauer, 2020, Which Academic Search Systems Are Suitable for Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses? Evaluating Retrieval Qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 Other Resources, Res. Synth. Methods source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, WoS allows for creating data sets of up to 50,000 data rows in one session (for citation analyses-up to 10,000).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, today, JIF is often misused due to a misinterpretation of its meaning, as it has become a standard tool in virtually all evaluation practices at all levels, usually without proper considerations of the rationale for its use [2,44,222,224-227].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Agarwal, 2016, Bibliometrics: Tracking Research Impact by Selecting the Appropriate Metrics, Asian J. Androl. source
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., and Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management), HEFCE.
- Not checked yetcites [222] Setti, 2013, Bibliometric Indicators: Why Do We Need More than One?, IEEE Access source
- Not checked yetcites [224] Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., and Thelwall, M. (2018). The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, Springer International Publishing. source
- Not checked yetcites [225] Ranjan, 2017, Bibliometric Indices of Scientific Journals: Time to Overcome the Obsession and Think beyond the Impact Factor, Med. J. Armed Forces India source
- Not checked yetcites [226] Callaway, 2016, Publishing Elite Turns against Impact Factor, Nature source
- Not checked yetcites [227] Moustafa, 2014, The Disaster of the Impact Factor, Sci. Eng. Ethics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Yet, only a minority of stakeholders employing bibliometric indicators are adequately familiar with their meaning and appropriate use [2,4,5,7].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Agarwal, 2016, Bibliometrics: Tracking Research Impact by Selecting the Appropriate Metrics, Asian J. Androl. source
- Not checked yetcites [4] Leydesdorff, 2016, Professional and Citizen Bibliometrics: Complementarities and Ambivalences in the Development and Use of Indicators—a State-of-the-Art Report, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [5] Moed, 2015, Multidimensional Assessment of Scholarly Research Impact, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
- Not checked yetcites [7] Wouters, 2016, Evaluation Practices and Effects of Indicator Use—A Literature Review, Res. Eval. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, JCR also provides five-year JIF, which is basically the same JIF with the time window for cited documents extended to five years.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Especially, due to the fact that citation metrics are calculated only using data from the particular DB, they are dependent on DBs coverage width and depth.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, both of these tools are not a part of the DBs and they are only accessible with separate (and costly) subscription.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the numerator, citations are counted to all document types, and only specific types of documents, so-called 'citable items', namely articles, reviews, and proceedings papers are included in the denominator, which represents the total amount of cited papers [45,224].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Walters, 2017, Citation-Based Journal Rankings: Key Questions, Metrics, and Data Sources, IEEE Access source
- Not checked yetcites [224] Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., and Thelwall, M. (2018). The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, Springer International Publishing. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analysis data can be extracted as displayed or all data rows (up to 200,000 rows), which can be downloaded as a tab-delimited text file.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, WoS offers several different API types, but access to them has to be acquired separately with additional conditions for use [28,218].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Carloni, M., Tsenkulovsky, T., and Mangan, R. (2020, August 13). Web of Science Core Collection Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=45175981.
- Not checked yetcites [218] Birkle, 2020, Web of Science as a Data Source for Research on Scientific and Scholarly Activity, Quant. Sci. Stud. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It should be noted that, although ESCI journals are not included in the JCR and do not receive JIF (and other JCR metrics), the citations from ESCI will accrue to all articles in the WoS CC and contribute to the JIF numerator [28].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Carloni, M., Tsenkulovsky, T., and Mangan, R. (2020, August 13). Web of Science Core Collection Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=45175981.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“WoS also calculates an Immediacy index, which is basically a one-year JIF [26,45].”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the JIF calculation method leads to several biases that limit its application and it is continuously discussed and criticized in scientometric literature concerning bibliometric indicators and their application in research evaluation practices [222,224].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [222] Setti, 2013, Bibliometric Indicators: Why Do We Need More than One?, IEEE Access source
- Not checked yetcites [224] Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., and Thelwall, M. (2018). The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, Springer International Publishing. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Possibilities to export or download data from the web-interfaces for external analyses are also usually limited, and the number of data rows available to export in one batch differs between the DBs [9,26].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Cobo, 2020, Software Tools for Conducting Bibliometric Analysis in Science: An up-to-Date Review, Prof. Inf.
- Not checked yetcites [26] Waltman, 2016, A Review of the Literature on Citation Impact Indicators, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although, according to Elsevier, Scopus provides free access to a basic API version of Scopus data for research purposes without a requirement of subscription, allowing limited access to basic metadata for most citation records, while full API access is only granted to subscribed users, but it does not require additional payments.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most obvious limitation of the JIF is the short two-year citation time window.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, Scopus provides CiteScore (CS) metrics, along with other, more advanced indicators-SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) [175].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [175] James, 2019, CiteScore Metrics: Creating Journal Metrics from the Scopus Citation Index, Learn. Publ. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In Scopus, the export limit reaches 2000 data rows, but Scopus also allows exporting up to 20,000 results (in 'Citations only' (CSV) format) using e-mail services.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“On the other hand, it raises the question of validity for comparisons, as journals or other document sets are being evaluated against unequal benchmarks [221].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [221] Mingers, 2017, Evaluating Journal Quality: A Review of Journal Citation Indicators and Ranking in Business and Management, Eur. J. Oper. Res. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, as was discussed earlier, both WoS and Scopus classifications are not perfect and they may introduce certain biases in normalizing impact indicators [221].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [221] Mingers, 2017, Evaluating Journal Quality: A Review of Journal Citation Indicators and Ranking in Business and Management, Eur. J. Oper. Res. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“since journals belonging to A&HCI and ESCI are not included in JCR, they do not have JIF or other journal impact metrics”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Walters, 2017, Citation-Based Journal Rankings: Key Questions, Metrics, and Data Sources, IEEE Access source
- Not checked yetcites [224] Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., and Thelwall, M. (2018). The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, Springer International Publishing. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as JCR does not include books and conference material (with rare exceptions), these sources also cannot be evaluated by WoS journal metrics.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The second and most important difference is that, in CS calculation, the publication types included in numerator and denominator coincide and include all document types indexed in Scopus.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Scopus only calculates CS for a minor part of indexed conference material sources. For instance, separate conferences and ones published as a special journal issues or part of book series do not receive CS metrics [86].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [86] Meho, 2019, Using Scopus’s CiteScore for Assessing the Quality of Computer Science Conferences, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Scopus also offers the CiteScore Tracker, representing the trends of upcoming source's CS value (similar to WoS Immediacy Index). It is calculated for the current (citation) year, rather than previous, complete years, and it is updated monthly [175].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [175] James, 2019, CiteScore Metrics: Creating Journal Metrics from the Scopus Citation Index, Learn. Publ. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“JIF values can also be artificially inflated by other means, for example, by pressuring authors to reference articles from particular journal, as journal self-citations are not accounted for in the calculation of classical and five-year JIF [224,225,230].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [224] Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., and Thelwall, M. (2018). The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, Springer International Publishing. source
- Not checked yetcites [225] Ranjan, 2017, Bibliometric Indices of Scientific Journals: Time to Overcome the Obsession and Think beyond the Impact Factor, Med. J. Armed Forces India source
- Not checked yetcites [230] Alguliyev, R., Aliguliyev, R., and Ismayilova, N. (2017). Impact Factor Penalized by Self-Citations. Appl. Inf. Commun. Technol. AICT 2016 Conf. Proc., 2–5. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For instance, the citing-side subject normalization approach was determined as being the most objective and appropriate for field normalization, when compared to normalization that is based on predefined subject classification schemes, especially in the case of multidisciplinary journals [180,185,235].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [180] Waltman, 2013, Source Normalized Indicators of Citation Impact: An Overview of Different Approaches and an Empirical Comparison, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [185] Waltman, 2013, A Systematic Empirical Comparison of Different Approaches for Normalizing Citation Impact Indicators, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [235] Waltman, 2013, Some Modifications to the SNIP Journal Impact Indicator, J. Informetr. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CS is calculated for sources after first full year of indexing in Scopus, in contrast to JIF, which is only calculated after three consecutive years of journal indexing in JCR.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“all of the indicators provided at WoS are only available through the subscription of the JCR tool. The only exception is journal Quartiles (Q), which can be viewed at WoS webinterface without an additional subscription of JCR [196].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [196] Ruccolo, M. (2020, November 25). Web of Science Core Collection: Web of Science: Summary of Coverage. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/woscc/coverage.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Citations are also counted from the four-year period, as compared to JIF, where citations are only counted from the current JCR year.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“On the other hand, the JIF version without self-citations, which is calculated in the same way as the classical JIF, but excluding journal self-citations from the numerator, is also available in JCR [45].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Walters, 2017, Citation-Based Journal Rankings: Key Questions, Metrics, and Data Sources, IEEE Access source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“An empirical investigation has shown that many of the sources without CS value were discontinued or newly included in the DB. Although, several hard to explain cases were also found [259].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [259] Krauskopf, 2020, Sources without a CiteScore Value: More Clarity Is Required, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, the time window applied is larger than in classical JIF and, more recently, it has been increased from three to four years.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the main difference of this approach from field (or cited-side) normalization is that the definition of subject field is not based on the WoS or any other predefined category classification schemes, but it is determined as the set of all papers or journals citing the target set of papers.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the basic principle of calculating CS is very similar to that of JIF, CS can be considered to be the Scopus version of JIF.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“indicators are only calculated for journals that are included in JCR, covering only about two-thirds of journals indexed in WoS CC (SCIE and SSCI indexes).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The underlying idea of citing-side or source normalization approach is that in the high density fields papers would likely have longer reference lists than in the low density fields [233].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [233] Bornmann, 2015, Methods for the Generation of Normalized Citation Impact Scores in Bibliometrics: Which Method Best Reflects the Judgements of Experts?, J. Informetr. source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In response to aforementioned JIF drawbacks and limitations, in December 2016 Scopus launched CiteScore (CS) impact indicator.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many authors have determined that the citing-side approach may outperform the traditional method of cited-side normalization.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, these conclusions have also been challenged [236].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [236] Leydesdorff, 2010, Scopus’s Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) versus a Journal Impact Factor Based on Fractional Counting of Citations, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Generally, the WoS subject classification scheme is most commonly used for normalization purposes [26].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Waltman, 2016, A Review of the Literature on Citation Impact Indicators, J. Informetr. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Even when journals are being compared by the values of impact indicators, the differences in size of the journals should be also taken into account [261].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [261] Antonoyiannakis, 2018, Impact Factors and the Central Limit Theorem: Why Citation Averages Are Scale Dependent, J. Informetr. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“comparisons of researchers would only be meaningful when comparing authors in the similar field and of the similar age or stage of their careers.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“only part of citations, as listed in publication's reference list, are dedicated to the main idea of the paper, while other sources are frequently only being mentioned as a simple recognition of other similar works, or as a persuasion on the scientific ground of the study [1,269].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Abramo, 2018, Revisiting the Scientometric Conceptualization of Impact and Its Measurement, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [269] Crothers, 2020, Citation Concept Analysis (CCA) of Robert K. Merton’s Book Social Theory and Social Structure: How Often Are Certain Concepts from the Book Cited in Subsequent Publications?, Quant. Sci. Stud.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, publications themselves are not equal in quality.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the use of publication and citation counts and, accordingly, the indicators that are derived from them, is only valid when they are applied at the similar levels of aggregation and in the appropriate context [260].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [260] Bornmann, 2017, Measuring Impact in Research Evaluations: A Thorough Discussion of Methods for, Effects of and Problems with Impact Measurements, High. Educ. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“all of the most popular journal impact indicators are calculated as ratios of citation and publication counts and they are based on arithmetic means.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The extent to which these factors can influence citations varies. Also, in many cases, the effect may be indirect, since most of these factors are interrelated.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, research quality is a multidimensional concept and, thus, cannot be only assessed by quantitative measures.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“citations can also be negative, raising the question about their impact to the quality of the cited document [45].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Walters, 2017, Citation-Based Journal Rankings: Key Questions, Metrics, and Data Sources, IEEE Access source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, citation-based impact indicators tend to create bias amongst authors not only when choosing journal for publishing, but also when choosing which literature to cite [268,273-275].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [268] Wang, 2018, A Quantitative Exploration on Reasons for Citing Articles from the Perspective of Cited Authors, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [273] Tahamtan, 2018, Core Elements in the Process of Citing Publications: Conceptual Overview of the Literature, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [274] Bornmann, 2017, Skewness of Citation Impact Data and Covariates of Citation Distributions: A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis Based on Web of Science Data, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [275] Uddin, 2016, The Impact of Author-Selected Keywords on Citation Counts, J. Informetr. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is often argued that the scientific impact of any evaluated entity cannot be determined solely by citations due to the different citing behaviors and resulting incompatible citation counts between disciplines [1-3,5,260,267].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Abramo, 2018, Revisiting the Scientometric Conceptualization of Impact and Its Measurement, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [2] Agarwal, 2016, Bibliometrics: Tracking Research Impact by Selecting the Appropriate Metrics, Asian J. Androl. source
- Not checked yetcites [3] Aksnes, D.W., Langfeldt, L., and Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories. SAGE Open, 9. source
- Not checked yetcites [5] Moed, 2015, Multidimensional Assessment of Scholarly Research Impact, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
- Not checked yetcites [260] Bornmann, 2017, Measuring Impact in Research Evaluations: A Thorough Discussion of Methods for, Effects of and Problems with Impact Measurements, High. Educ. source
- Not checked yetcites [267] MacRoberts, 2018, The Mismeasure of Science: Citation Analysis, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Citations may be appropriate in assessing the scientific impact of the research, but they do not show the impact of the research outside the scientific community [1,3,5,6,260,264,265].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Abramo, 2018, Revisiting the Scientometric Conceptualization of Impact and Its Measurement, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [3] Aksnes, D.W., Langfeldt, L., and Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories. SAGE Open, 9. source
- Not checked yetcites [5] Moed, 2015, Multidimensional Assessment of Scholarly Research Impact, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
- Not checked yetcites [6] Bianco, 2016, Academic Evaluation: Universal Instrument? Tool for Development?, Minerva source
- Not checked yetcites [260] Bornmann, 2017, Measuring Impact in Research Evaluations: A Thorough Discussion of Methods for, Effects of and Problems with Impact Measurements, High. Educ. source
- Not checked yetcites [264] Ravenscroft, J., Liakata, M., Clare, A., and Duma, D. (2017). Measuring Scientific Impact beyond Academia: An Assessment of Existing Impact Metrics and Proposed Improvements. PLoS ONE, 12. source
- Not checked yetcites [265] Reale, 2018, A Review of Literature on Evaluating the Scientific, Social and Political Impact of Social Sciences and Humanities Research, Res. Eval. source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The simple amount of publications does not reflect the scientific impact, since publication counts measure productivity, rather than quality [1,2].”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“peer-reviewing has its own characteristic biases and limitations, which is one of the reasons why, nowadays, peer-review has been increasingly extensively replaced with bibliometric measures of impact [3,44,276].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Aksnes, D.W., Langfeldt, L., and Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories. SAGE Open, 9. source
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., and Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management), HEFCE.
- Not checked yetcites [276] Abramo, 2019, Peer Review versus Bibliometrics: Which Method Better Predicts the Scholarly Impact of Publications?, Scientometrics source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“conclusions stating poor agreement between metric and peer-review were also obtained [283].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [283] Baccini, 2016, Do They Agree? Bibliometric Evaluation versus Informed Peer Review in the Italian Research Assessment Exercise, Scientometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“researchers are highly encouraged to publish their study results in a timely manner in the best possible journals.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“(2) they are regarded as more trustworthy and objective, because it is believed that the use of indicators may help to avoid biases that are introduced by personal interest and authority relations;”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Bianco, 2016, Academic Evaluation: Universal Instrument? Tool for Development?, Minerva source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“public recommendations were released, such as European Commission frameworks [292,293], encouraging an application of more sustainable evaluation methods.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [292] Wilsdon, J., Bar-ilan, J., Frodeman, R., Lex, E., Peters, I., and Wouters, P. (2017). Next-Generation Metrics: Reponsible Metrics and Evaluation for Open Science, European Commission.
- Not checked yetcites [293] Wouters, P., Ràfols, I., Oancea, A., Kamerlin, L.S.C., Holbrook, B.J., and Jacob, M. (2019). Indicator Frameworks for Fostering Open Knowledge Practices in Science and Scholarship, European Commission.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The same can be said about the use of WoS and Scopus data in Social Sciences & Humanities, since these disciplines are clearly underrepresented in the DBs [5,44,47,88,91,163,263].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Moed, 2015, Multidimensional Assessment of Scholarly Research Impact, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., and Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management), HEFCE.
- Not checked yetcites [47] Mongeon, 2016, The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [88] Ochsner, M., Hug, S.E., and Daniel, H. (2016). Assessment in the Humanities, Springer Nature. source
- Not checked yetcites [91] Chapman, 2019, An Evaluation of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar Citations in Operations Management, Int. J. Logist. Manag. source
- Not checked yetcites [163] Tennant, J.P., Crane, H., Crick, T., Davila, J., Enkhbayar, A., Havemann, J., Kramer, B., Martin, R., Masuzzo, P., and Nobes, A. (2019). Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing. Publications, 7. source
- Not checked yetcites [263] Desrochers, 2018, Authorship, Citations, Acknowledgments and Visibility in Social Media: Symbolic Capital in the Multifaceted Reward System of Science, Soc. Sci. Inf. source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In 2015, Nature published 'The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics' [291], which established the main ten principles of the best practice in metrics-based research assessments.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [291] Hicks, 2015, Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics, Nature source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“citation data and indicators are only calculated from the data covered by the particular DB, and no data source covers all relevant documents.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: No bibliographic data source covers all relevant documents.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this approach creates a bias towards only publishing in journals with high impact values and decreases the recognition of sciences mainly published in journals of national orientation, or preferring less popular sources for knowledge dissemination, like books, since impact indicators are usually not calculated for these sources.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the vastly increased imprudent reliance on the use of bibliometric indicators and their widespread use in evaluation practice has led to misinterpretations of the concept and significance of scientific impact itself and what measures can be used to properly assess.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) was developed in 2012 and became a worldwide initiative strongly recommending against the inappropriate use of impact factor in the research assessments [290].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [290] ASCB (2020, November 25). Read the declaration—DORA. Available online: https://sfdora.org/read/.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These studies are also often targeted at the general public and, therefore, are often published in the national language, which narrows the size of potential audience and, consequently, reduces the likelihood of citation [87,96,260,265,294].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [87] Grégoire, C., Roberge, G., and Archambault, É. Bibliometrics and Patent Indicators for the Science and Engineering Indicators 2016─Comparison of 2016 Bibliometric Indicators to 2014 Indicators. Science & Engineering Indicators 2016 (SEI 2016), Available online: https://science-metrix.com/?q=en/publications/reports&page=2#/?q=en/publications/reports/bibliometrics-and-patent-indicators-for-the-science-and-engineering-indicator-0.
- Not checked yetcites [96] Mohammadi, 2018, A Review of Scientific Outputs on Spirituality and Depression Indexed in Important Databases, Int. J. Med. Rev. source
- Not checked yetcites [260] Bornmann, 2017, Measuring Impact in Research Evaluations: A Thorough Discussion of Methods for, Effects of and Problems with Impact Measurements, High. Educ. source
- Not checked yetcites [265] Reale, 2018, A Review of Literature on Evaluating the Scientific, Social and Political Impact of Social Sciences and Humanities Research, Res. Eval. source
- Not checked yetcites [294] Bornmann, 2018, The Negative Effects of Citing with a National Orientation in Terms of Recognition: National and International Citations in Natural-Sciences Papers from Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK, J. Informetr. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“this 'publish or perish' attitude, on the one hand, stimulates the productivity of researchers, but, on the other, creates a bias towards quantity, often overlooking quality [2,3,6-8,44,81,163,260,263,284-288].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Agarwal, 2016, Bibliometrics: Tracking Research Impact by Selecting the Appropriate Metrics, Asian J. Androl. source
- Not checked yetcites [3] Aksnes, D.W., Langfeldt, L., and Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories. SAGE Open, 9. source
- Not checked yetcites [6] Bianco, 2016, Academic Evaluation: Universal Instrument? Tool for Development?, Minerva source
- Not checked yetcites [7] Wouters, 2016, Evaluation Practices and Effects of Indicator Use—A Literature Review, Res. Eval. source
- Not checked yetcites [8] Kun, Á. (2018). Publish and Who Should Perish: You or Science?. Publications, 6. source
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., and Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management), HEFCE.
- Not checked yetcites [81] Chavarro, 2018, To What Extent Is Inclusion in TheWeb of Science an Indicator of Journal ‘Quality’?, Res. Eval. source
- Not checked yetcites [163] Tennant, J.P., Crane, H., Crick, T., Davila, J., Enkhbayar, A., Havemann, J., Kramer, B., Martin, R., Masuzzo, P., and Nobes, A. (2019). Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing. Publications, 7. source
- Not checked yetcites [260] Bornmann, 2017, Measuring Impact in Research Evaluations: A Thorough Discussion of Methods for, Effects of and Problems with Impact Measurements, High. Educ. source
- Not checked yetcites [263] Desrochers, 2018, Authorship, Citations, Acknowledgments and Visibility in Social Media: Symbolic Capital in the Multifaceted Reward System of Science, Soc. Sci. Inf. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although bibliometric indicators were generally shown to be positively correlated with peer-review evaluations”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., and Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management), HEFCE.
- Not checked yetcites [276] Abramo, 2019, Peer Review versus Bibliometrics: Which Method Better Predicts the Scholarly Impact of Publications?, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [280] Haddawy, 2016, A Comprehensive Examination of the Relation of Three Citation-Based Journal Metrics to Expert Judgment of Journal Quality, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [282] Traag, 2019, Systematic Analysis of Agreement between Metrics and Peer Review in the UK REF, Palgrave Commun. source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, sources publishing papers with a national focus attract much fewer citations and they are generally considered to be of inferior quality and are usually not included in the main selective bibliographic DBs.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“because publication data and citation metrics continue to play the most important role in research assessments worldwide, indicator-based research assessments also remain at the center of the global debate, not only about their validity, but also about their influence on research activities, scientific output, and its quality [1,5-7,44,260,265,289].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Abramo, 2018, Revisiting the Scientometric Conceptualization of Impact and Its Measurement, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [5] Moed, 2015, Multidimensional Assessment of Scholarly Research Impact, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
- Not checked yetcites [6] Bianco, 2016, Academic Evaluation: Universal Instrument? Tool for Development?, Minerva source
- Not checked yetcites [7] Wouters, 2016, Evaluation Practices and Effects of Indicator Use—A Literature Review, Res. Eval. source
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., and Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management), HEFCE.
- Not checked yetcites [260] Bornmann, 2017, Measuring Impact in Research Evaluations: A Thorough Discussion of Methods for, Effects of and Problems with Impact Measurements, High. Educ. source
- Not checked yetcites [265] Reale, 2018, A Review of Literature on Evaluating the Scientific, Social and Political Impact of Social Sciences and Humanities Research, Res. Eval. source
- Not checked yetcites [289] Moher, D., Naudet, F., Cristea, I.A., Miedema, F., John, P., Ioannidis, A., and Goodman, S.N. (2018). Assessing Scientists for Hiring, Promotion, and Tenure. PLoS Biol., 16. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“(3) they are perceived as more accessible and do not require the involvement of scientists or subject specialists [6].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Bianco, 2016, Academic Evaluation: Universal Instrument? Tool for Development?, Minerva source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“in 2016, the American Society of Microbiology (ASM) declared that JIFs will no longer be posted to the ASM journal websites or used in advertising [226].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [226] Callaway, 2016, Publishing Elite Turns against Impact Factor, Nature source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“'The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management' took a deeper look at the potential uses and limitations of research metrics and indicators [262].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [262] Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., Jones, R., Kain, R., Kerridge, S., and Thelwall, M. (2015). Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management, HEFCE. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted that these recommendations do not entirely neglect the value of bibliometric indicators in evaluating research performance, but they are highlighting the importance of their responsible use regarding their original purpose and intended meaning.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, as both WoS and Scopus indexes data documents, the comprehensiveness and quality of their coverage in the DBs will also gain great importance in the upcoming years.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For this, two components are critical-a bibliometric data source and tools for quality interpretation-metrics. They are both provided by the major bibliographic DBs.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, they serve as the major tools for a variety of tasks: from journal and literature selection or personal career tracking to large-scale bibliometric analyses and research evaluation practices in all possible levels.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, coverage depth, particularly regarding citations, is generally better in WoS.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“WoS and Scopus both offer an extensive coverage of Natural, Medicine, Health Sciences, Engineering, and Technology disciplines and, thus, could be used in research evaluations of these disciplines.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Scopus is not divided into separate indexes and, thus, all of the searches are performed in the range of all indexed content without differences in the search parameters available for separate indexes, as in WoS CC case [42].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] Gusenbauer, 2020, Which Academic Search Systems Are Suitable for Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses? Evaluating Retrieval Qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 Other Resources, Res. Synth. Methods source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Secondly, the availability of individual profiles for all authors, institutions, and serial sources, as well as the interrelated interface of DB, makes Scopus more convenient for practical use.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The majority of information in Scopus is linked, allowing easy transition between different information types.
- Rests on an assumption: Most lists and other data in Scopus can be opened in separate or emerging windows and tabs.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For a long time, WoS was the only comprehensive bibliographic data source available. However, the situation has changed with an introduction of Scopus, which rapidly became a major competitor to WoS.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding source profiles, WoS provides more detailed information, but the profiles are only available for journals, while, in Scopus, they are created for all indexed periodical sources.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, the lack of detailed explorations of these tools may be one of the reasons leading to the relatively low usage while they actually might be very helpful.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Published data sets can be cited separately and, accordingly, included in research evaluation practices as additional publications [297].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [297] Mongeon, 2017, DataCite as a Novel Bibliometric Source: Coverage, Strengths and Limitations, J. Informetr. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the main biases towards the overrepresentation of English language sources, unequal representation of countries, and underrepresentation of SSH literature still remains the main limitations of these data sources.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“WoS vendor also promises an improved search speed and access through mobile gadgets, as well as unified user profiles.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [300] Clarivate (2020, December 29). Release Notes—Web of Science Group. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/release-notes/wos/.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another advantage of Scopus is that it provides searchable and comprehensive profiles, along with unique identifiers for all authors, institutions, and periodical sources.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Most of the changes will be made to the layout of the web page, which should make the interface more modern and user-friendly.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [300] Clarivate (2020, December 29). Release Notes—Web of Science Group. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/release-notes/wos/.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, most importantly, Scopus is subscribed as a one single DB, without the confusion or additional restrictions regarding content accessibility.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, Scopus is more open to the society, as it provides free access to author and source information, including metrics.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although, during the last decade, there was a significant growth of available bibliographic data sources and metrics, Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases (DBs) still remain the two major and most comprehensive sources of publication metadata and impact indicators.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Thus, authors are encouraged (and often, required) to open not only their published research results, but also research data [132].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [132] Ignat, T., and Ayris, P. (2020). Built to Last! Embedding Open Science Principles and Practice into European Universities. Insights UKSG J., 33. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, academic institutions will be forced to subscribe to WoS and Scopus DBs, or at least to one of them, as long as their provided metrics will remain the core elements in research evaluation and career assessment practices.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Generally, the distributions of errors between WoS and Scopus are very different, with one error being more frequent in one DB, and others, in the other DB [62,66,79,95].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [62] Franceschini, 2016, Empirical Analysis and Classification of Database Errors in Scopus and Web of Science, J. Informetr. source
- Not checked yetcites [66] Van Eck, N.J., and Waltman, L. (2017, January 16–20). Accuracy of Citation Data in Web of Science and Scopus. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI 2017), Wuhan, China.
- Not checked yetcites [79] Liu, 2020, Accuracy of Funding Information in Scopus: A Comparative Case Study, Scientometrics source
- Not checked yetcites [95] Rafols, I., Molas-Gallart, J., and Woolley, R. (2016, January 1–7). Data Quality and Consistency in Scopus and Web of Science in Their Indexing of Czech Journals. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2016), València, Spain.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Generally, the suitability of DB mainly depends on the objectives and application context of the particular task, including consideration of the required degree of the selectivity and the level of aggregation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This might be at least partially explained by the different data uploading and curation mechanisms used in the DBs as many errors are being made by the authors and/or publishers, which are uploaded into DBs with publications' metadata, while other mistakes are being introduced by the algorithms employed in the DBs [62].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [62] Franceschini, 2016, Empirical Analysis and Classification of Database Errors in Scopus and Web of Science, J. Informetr. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“although author disambiguation systems in both DBs were shown to be more accurate [121], split identities and other discrepancies still occur.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [121] Ioannidis, J.P.A., Baas, J., Klavans, R., and Boyack, K.W. (2019). A Standardized Citation Metrics Author Database Annotated for Scientific Field. PLoS Biol. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, Scopus provides wider and more inclusive content coverage.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, Scopus seems to provide better and easier access to the data.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, nowadays they encompass so many features and functionalities that it is impossible to draw such a general conclusion, since one DB may be a better choice for one purpose, but less for another.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: WoS and Scopus have been extensively compared for more than 15 years; the scientometric community still has not reached the verdict of which one is better.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In addition, DBs' vendors are promoting user-orientated changes through cooperation with their customers.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In particular, in the case of WoS, since, during the preparation of this article, Clarivate announced major changes that are planned to be implemented in WoS interface in the near future [300].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [300] Clarivate (2020, December 29). Release Notes—Web of Science Group. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/release-notes/wos/.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Elsevier promotes authors to supervise and maintain their Scopus author profile integrity by providing a free access to the profiles and their correction opportunities. Additionally, Elsevier encourages Scopus users to report any observed discrepancies [171].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [171] Meester, 2016, A Response to “The Museum of Errors/Horrors in Scopus” by Franceschini et Al, J. Informetr. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, because the rates of errors are not very high, they should not significantly affect the results of the analyses, if they are properly taken into account.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The content coverage and quality of DBs are constantly changing and improving, as well as the convenience of their web-interfaces.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, both DBs are constantly being improved due to the intense competition and notable transfer of academic activities into digital internet-based environment.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the comparisons of these data sources have become one of the major discussion themes in scientometrics, as DBs can differ in many aspects, determining their suitability as an appropriate and reliable data sources for various purposes”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [296] Archambault, 2009, Comparing Bibliometric Statistics Obtained From TheWeb of Science and Scopus, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, it may be more suitable for searching and analyzing Open Access resources at the publication level.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“multiple studies have shown that Scopus offers wider coverage, both of publications and of citations, in all major disciplines and document types, as well as better representation of non-English and regional literature.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., and Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management), HEFCE.
- Not checked yetcites [87] Grégoire, C., Roberge, G., and Archambault, É. Bibliometrics and Patent Indicators for the Science and Engineering Indicators 2016─Comparison of 2016 Bibliometric Indicators to 2014 Indicators. Science & Engineering Indicators 2016 (SEI 2016), Available online: https://science-metrix.com/?q=en/publications/reports&page=2#/?q=en/publications/reports/bibliometrics-and-patent-indicators-for-the-science-and-engineering-indicator-0.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is evident that both DBs certainly offer a wide coverage of highest quality journals, along with the additional analysis tools for publications and citations.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the coverage of certain disciplines or subject fields' literature in selective bibliographic DBs should be evaluated with additional precautions, since it is highly dependent on several other aspects of coverage, such as indexed source and document types and coverage of non-English language publications.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, Scopus might be a better choice for performing tasks within the context of Arts & Humanities and focused on more nationally orientated and novel research [44,87].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., and Franssen, T. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management), HEFCE.
- Not checked yetcites [87] Grégoire, C., Roberge, G., and Archambault, É. Bibliometrics and Patent Indicators for the Science and Engineering Indicators 2016─Comparison of 2016 Bibliometric Indicators to 2014 Indicators. Science & Engineering Indicators 2016 (SEI 2016), Available online: https://science-metrix.com/?q=en/publications/reports&page=2#/?q=en/publications/reports/bibliometrics-and-patent-indicators-for-the-science-and-engineering-indicator-0.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the overall coverage of DBs sources can also change significantly due to the global shift towards openness in research and publishing practice.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“WoS also employs disambiguation systems of authors and institutions, but individual identifiers are not assigned.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These changes have just begun to be actively implemented, and the final transition to the new interface is planned for 2021.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [300] Clarivate (2020, December 29). Release Notes—Web of Science Group. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/release-notes/wos/.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The extent and comprehensiveness of covered content is the most important characteristic of DB for obtaining reliable results.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In today's technologically savvy and data-driven society, most of the valuation methods are based on quantitative measures. Research evaluations are also no exception and, today, they are performed as bibliometric analysis of scientific output (publications) produced by the evaluated research unit.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, thirdly, the implemented impact indicators perform equally well and even better than the metrics that were provided by WoS, are less susceptible to manipulation and are available for all serial sources in all disciplines.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, because publishing and evaluation trends, as well as the DBs themselves, are not constant, new insights in DBs' suitability for particular assessments may, in turn, suggest some changes for these policies.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
250 of 250
The paper relies on this without support.
The reliability of any results is highly dependent on the data source used.
“Thereby, because the reliability of any results is highly dependent on the data source used, all of the potential DBs users, including non-bibliometricians, should be able to objectively evaluate and wisely choose between these two DBs and bibliometric indicators provided by them.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no single and adequately recent study describing all aspects relevant to the intended audience.
“Accordingly, to the author's knowledge, there is no single and adequately recent study describing all aspects, including not only DBs' content coverage and provided metrics, but also their practical use, which are relevant not only to research evaluators, governors, or bibliometricians, but also-for the rest (and probably-the most important) part of academic society.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Findings from studies performed in the last five years adequately reflect the current situation of WoS and Scopus.
“Additionally, due to the aforementioned obsolescence of information, only findings that were described in studies performed in the last five years will be discussed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The comprehensiveness of patent coverage in WoS and Scopus has not been extensively compared.
“However, the comprehensiveness of patent coverage in these two DBs, to the author's knowledge, have not been extensively compared.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The majority of studies on funding information coverage have focused only on WoS or compared WoS with other data sources, not with Scopus.
“However, the majority of studies addressing this matter has only focused on the coverage and accuracy of funding data in WoS or compared WoS with other data sources, but not with Scopus.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The quality of research is currently judged by the quality of the journal in which it was published.
“since the quality of research is currently judged by the quality of the journal in which it was published.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Scopus source inclusion may also be affected by particularistic criteria.
“as both DBs are selective, it can be assumed that Scopus source inclusion may also be affected by particularistic criteria.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The quality of content indexed in bibliographic databases is defined more by the quality of provided metadata than by the quality of indexed sources, especially for bibliometric analyses.
“the quality of the content that is indexed in the DBs is defined not only by the quality of indexed sources, but even more by a quality of the provided metadata, especially for bibliometric analyses.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no reliable way to identify and analyze publications with missing address information in Scopus online.
“since there is no reliable way to identify and analyze publications with missing address information in Scopus online.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no common rule indicating which date should be documented in publication metadata.
“Yet, there is no common rule indicating which date should be documented in publication metadata.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Predatory journals aim to become indexed in databases in order to create a reputable image and attract more authors.
“aiming to become indexed in the DBs in order to create a reputable image and attract more authors”
The paper relies on this without support.
WoS and Scopus are the main bibliographic databases in today's academic world.
“WoSandScopus are the main sources of the most prevailed scientific impact indicators, therefore the comparison of these DBs will not be comprehensive without mentioning the impact metrics provided at these data sources.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Journals with higher impact indicators publish papers of higher scientific value.
“based on an assumption that journals with higher impact indicators publish papers of a higher scientific value.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Journal quality rank reflects the quality of publications of the researcher and overall research.
“based on the underlying assumption that journal quality rank reflects the quality of publications of the researcher and, accordingly, overall research.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No bibliographic data source covers all relevant documents.
“no data source covers all relevant documents.”
The paper relies on this without support.
All research evaluation practices inevitably affect the behavior of evaluated parties.
“all of the research evaluation practices inevitably affect the behavior of evaluated parties.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In both WoS and Scopus, errors of all types are still present.
“However, judging by the most recent studies, in both DBs, errors of all types are still present.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Clarivate actively engages in personal communication with WoS customers and addresses concerns expressed in their feedback.
“Meanwhile, Clarivate actively engages in personal communication with WoS customers and addresses concerns that are expressed in their feedback.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Comparisons of OA content coverage in WoS and Scopus have not received significant attention.
“comparisons of OAcontent coverage in WoS and Scopus have not received significant attention.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Web-interfaces are being constantly changed.
“However, as was mentioned before, web-interfaces are being constantly changed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Scopus also constantly improves its web-interface; layout of profile pages has been updated at least several times.
“The same can be said for Scopus, because this DB also constantly improves its web-interface. For instance, during the last couple of years, the layout of profile pages has been updated at least several times.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Both DBs owning companies offer additional products and tools, such as InCites, Essential Science Indicators, SciVal, Pure.
“In addition, both DBs owning companies also offer additional products and tools, in order to assist in online data analyses, such as InCites and Essential Science Indicators powered by WoS data, and SciVal and Pure powered by Scopus data.”
The paper relies on this without support.
These products are only available with an additional subscription, so few WoS and Scopus subscribers have access to them.
“However, these products are only available with an additional subscription, so few WoS and Scopus subscribers have access to them.”
The paper relies on this without support.
WoS and Scopus have been extensively compared for more than 15 years; the scientometric community still has not reached the verdict of which one is better.
“Despite the fact that WoS and Scopus DBs have been extensively compared for more than 15 years, the scientometric community still have not reached the verdict of 'which one is better'.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The majority of information in Scopus is linked, allowing easy transition between different information types.
“Secondly, the majority of information is linked and therefore allows easy transition between different information types.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most lists and other data in Scopus can be opened in separate or emerging windows and tabs.
“Besides, most of the lists and other data can be opened in separate or emerging windows and tabs.”
26 of 26
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Research has established that, while Scopus has greater breadth in its inclusion of academic journals, WoS is known for its greater keyword sensitivity and a historically extensive volume of references [25,26].”
From Evolution of Primary Research Studies in Digital Interventions for Mental Well-Being Promotion from 2004 to 2023: A Bibliometric Analysis of Studies on the Web of Science (2024) · cites this paper as [26]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This double extraction ensures robustness because they are the two major and most comprehensive sources of publication metadata and impact indicators (Pranckutė, 2021).”
From Green public procurement as an effective way for sustainable development: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Pranckutė, 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, discrepancies in the data due to missing values, different spellings of the authors’ full names, or differences in affiliations’ names within the source data can all lead to variations in the results of the performance analysis [26].”
In the citing paper
“This bibliographic database indexes more than 21,000 scientific journals [31].”
From Teamwork and implementation of innovations in healthcare and human service settings: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [31]
In the citing paper
“the relevant academic publishing was collected from Scopus which has been supported as having the widest coverage in peer-reviewed scholarly journals and publications among bibliographic databases [21,22,23].”
From A Review of Privacy Enhancement Methods for Federated Learning in Healthcare Systems (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ 4.3. H-Index · p. 37
“Meanwhile, this option is not available in WoS.”
§ 3.12. Search and Online Analysis Capabilities · p. 32
“The 'Create Citation Report' tool provides citation information for the investigated publication set, including h-index, which is presented both with and without self-citations, and its calculation graph.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 3.11. Comprehensiveness of Information Provided by the DBs' Owners · p. 27
“| Institutional profiles | ~70M | >5000 | [200] |”
§ 3.9. Institution Information · p. 15
“Currently, more than 70,000 institutional profiles are created and searchable in Scopus.”
2 of 2
Citations
Cites
An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output
Hirsch, J. E. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102 · Cited by 11,669
The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 · Cited by 5,274
Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/520429a · Cited by 2,828
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1378 · Cited by 2,379 · cited 10×
“An accurate evaluation of WoS CC content coverage is highly challenging, as WoS is composed of a variety of specialized indexes and the composition of WoS CC can be modulated by different subscription terms [15,42].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCitation Indexes for Science: A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas
Garfield, E. (1955) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.122.3159.108 · Cited by 2,334
Bramer, W. M., Rethlefsen, M. L., Kleijnen, J., & Franco, O. H. (2017) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y · Cited by 2,114
Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00019 · Cited by 2,093
Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review
Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera‐Viedma, E., Santisteban‐Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. J. (2020) · El Profesional de la Informacion · doi:10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03 · Cited by 1,992
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002 · Cited by 1,990
A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases
Chadegani, A. A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ebrahim, N. A. (2013) · Asian Social Science · doi:10.5539/ass.v9n5p18 · Cited by 1,933
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- 2017, Google Scholar as a Source for Scholarly Evaluation: A Bibliographic Review of Database Errors, Rev. española Doc. Científica, 40, e185
- Elsevier (2020, August 13). Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content.
- Rafols, I., Molas-Gallart, J., and Woolley, R. (2016, January 1–7). Data Quality and Consistency in Scopus and Web of Science in Their Indexing of Czech Journals. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2016), València, Spain.
- Elsevier (2020, September 21). Scopus Fact Sheet. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/114533/Scopus_GlobalResearch_Factsheet2019_FINAL_WEB.pdf.
- Elsevier (2020, September 21). Scopus Quick Reference Guide. Available online: https://supportcontent.elsevier.com/RightNow%20Next%20Gen/Scopus/Files/Scopus_User_Guide.pdf.
- Clarivate (2020, November 25). Journal Citation Reports: Open Access Data Beta. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=54083756.
- Clarivate (2020, November 25). Journal Citation Reports—Descriptive Document. Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=48842741.
- Clarivate (2020, November 25). Web of Science Master Journal List—WoS MJL. Available online: https://mjl.clarivate.com/home.
- Elsevier (2020, November 26). What is Scopus Preview?—Scopus: Access and Use Support Center. Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/15534/c/10543/supporthub/scopus/.
- Elsevier (2020, December 03). What Can I Do on an Affiliation Details Page?. Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/11264/supporthub/scopus/.
- Elsevier (2020, December 03). About the Institution Profile Wizard. Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/25554/supporthub/scopus/related/1/.
- Clarivate (2020, November 25). Web of Science Journal Evaluation Process and Selection Criteria. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/journal-evaluation-process-and-selection-criteria/.
- Clarivate (2020, November 25). Web of Science Core Collection Journal Selection Process. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/08/WS369553747_Fact-Sheet_Core-Collection_V4_Updated1.pdf.
- Clarivate (2020, November 25). Web of Science Core Collection: Journal Evaluation Criteria. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/08/WS366313095_EditorialExplanation_Factsheet_A4_RGB_V4.pdf.
- Clarivate (2020, November 25). Web of Science Journal Citation Reports: Suppression Policy. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/jcr-suppression-policy-2020.pdf.
- Clarivate (2020, November 26). Web of Science Conference Proceedings Selection Process. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/essays/web-science-conference-proceedings-selection-process/.
- Holland, K., Brimblecombe, P., Meester, W., and Steiginga, S. (2020, November 26). The Importance of High-Quality Content: Curation and Re- Evaluation in Scopus. Elsevier. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence/resource-library/scopus-high-quality-content.
- Elsevier (2020, November 26). Scopus—Content—Content Policy and Selection. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content/content-policy-and-selection.
- Elsevier (2020, November 25). Content—How Scopus Works. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content.
- Clarivate (2020, November 25). Journal Citation Reports-Inforographic. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/web-of-science-journal-citation-reports-2020-infographic/.
- Elsevier (2020, November 25). About Scopus—Abstract and citation database. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus.
- Elsevier (2020, November 25). Scopus: Access and use Support Center-Home. Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/home/supporthub/scopus/.
- Elsevier (2020, November 25). Scopus tutorials—Scopus: Access and Use Support Center. Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14799/kw/export/supporthub/scopus/related/1/.
- Elsevier (2020, November 25). What is the Scopus Affiliation Identifier?. Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/11215/supporthub/scopus/.
- Elsevier (2020, December 04). How Do I Email, Print, or Create a Bibliography, or Save Documents to PDF Format?. Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/12009/supporthub/scopus/kw/bibliography/.
- Elsevier (2020, November 25). How Do I Export Documents from Scopus?—Scopus: Access and Use Support Center. Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/11234/kw/export/supporthub/scopus/related/1/.
- Clarivate (2020, November 25). Journal Citation Reports—Journal Impact Factor (JIF). Available online: https://clarivate.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=55911188.
- Elsevier (2020, December 05). How Are CiteScore Metrics Used in Scopus?. Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14880/supporthub/scopus/.
- Elsevier (2020, October 09). CiteScore Metrics: The Basics. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/652552/SC_FS_CiteScore-metrics-The-Basics.pdf.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice
Kraus, S., Breier, M., Lim, W. M., Dabić, M., Kumar, S., Kanbach, D. K., Mukherjee, D., Corvello, V., Chousa, J. P., Liguori, E. W., et al. (2022) · Review of Managerial Science · doi:10.1007/s11846-022-00588-8 · Cited by 1,392
“…they can be summarized as follows: ● Search database (e.g., “Scopus” and/or “Web of Science”) can be defined based on justified evidence (e.g., by the two being the largest scientific databases of scholarly articles that can provide on-demand bibliographic data or records; Pranckutė 2021).”
BackgroundExplainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in finance: a systematic literature review
Černevičienė, J., & Kabašinskas, A. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10854-8 · Cited by 507
“An extensive search of the Scopus and Web of Science (WOS) databases from 2005 to 2022 was conducted during the research due to their comprehensive coverage of finance and AI topics (Zhu and Liu 2020; Pranckutė 2021) applications.”
The Science of Literature Reviews: Searching, Identifying, Selecting, and Synthesising
Chigbu, U. E., Atiku, S. O., & Plessis, C. C. D. (2023) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications11010002 · Cited by 387
Gao, B., Wang, Y., Xie, H., Hu, Y., & Hu, Y. (2023) · Sage Open · doi:10.1177/21582440231210759 · Cited by 244
Artificial intelligence for literature reviews: opportunities and challenges
Bolaños, F., Salatino, A., Osborne, F., & Motta, E. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10902-3 · Cited by 246
“In snowballing, the researcher examines the references and citations of an initial group of papers (also known as seed papers) to identify additional articles.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Pranckutė, R.
- Affiliations
- Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (LT)
- Corresponding author
- Pranckutė, Raminta
- ORCID
- Pranckutė, Raminta
- Venue
- Publications
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2021-03-12
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 12
- ISSN
- 2304-6775 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3137875885
- Semantic Scholar
- 8e73dc7cde11952a410feac65a52ad99e27090e3
- Cited by
- 2,696
- References
- 246
- Citations by year
- 2026: 753 · 2025: 771 · 2024: 574 · 2023: 373 · 2022: 187 · 2021: 37
- FWCI
- 169.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Publications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
- Keywords
- Web of Science, Scopus, bibliographic databases, database comparison, database coverage, bibliometric indicators, research evaluation, bibliographic metadata, citation data, database selection
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
