The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis
By V. Singh, Prashasti Singh, Mousumi Karmakar, J. Leta, Philipp Mayr. Scientometrics, 2020
1,783 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Traditionally, Web of Science and Scopus have been the two most widely used databases for bibliometric analyses. However, during the last few years some new scholarly databases, such as Dimensions, have come up. Several previous studies have compared different databases, either through a direct comparison of article coverage or by comparing the citations across the databases. This article aims to present a comparative analysis of the journal coverage of the three databases (Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions), with the objective to describe, understand and visualize the differences in them. The most recent master journal lists of the three databases is used for analysis. The results indicate that the databases have significantly different journal coverage, with the Web of Science being most selective and Dimensions being the most exhaustive. About 99.11% and 96.61% of the journals indexed in Web of Science are also indexed in Scopus and Dimensions, respectively. Scopus has 96.42% of its indexed journals also covered by Dimensions. Dimensions database has the most exhaustive journal coverage, with 82.22% more journals than Web of Science and 48.17% more journals than Scopus. This article also analysed the research outputs for 20 selected countries for the 2010–2018 period, as indexed in the three databases, and identified database-induced variations in research output volume, rank, global share and subject area composition for different countries. It is found that there are clearly visible variations in the research output from different countries in the three databases, along with differential coverage of different subject areas by the three databases. The analytical study provides an informative and practically useful picture of the journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions databases.
Subfields: Computer Science Applications, Information Systems and Management, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ddc071ee3dae345ba86b114c83288deec9fe08b9
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Computer Science Applications
In Statistics and Probability
Citations in the corpus
- Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals (2021, methodology): “Dimensions was chosen for its coverage of the literature that is larger than the Web of Science and Scopus (Singh, Singh, Karmakar, Leta, & Mayr, 2021) and because it is free for scientometric research.”