Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to establish the research impact of the National Research Foundation (NRF)-rated researchers’ output at the North-West University (NWU), South Africa, from 2006 to 2017. Design/methodology/approach The study used bibliometrics and altmetrics methods to determine the production of research outputs and the impact of NWU’s NRF-rated researchers’ publications. Various tools including Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, ResearchGate (RG) and Mendeley were used to collect data. The citations in the three bibliographic databases were used as proxy for academic impact, while reads and readerships in RG and Mendeley were used to determine societal impact of the researchers. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to test the relationship between citations in the three bibliographic databases and reads and readerships in RG and Mendeley. Findings The main findings were that the majority of NWU’s NRF-rated researchers’ publications emanated from GS, followed by Scopus and then WoS. GS output also had more citations. There were 6,026 research outputs in RG which were read for 676,919 times and 5,850 in Mendeley with 142,621 readerships. Correlations between RG and all three bibliographic databases’ citations were scant. Strong relationships between the three bibliographic databases’ citations and Mendeley readerships were found. Practical implications Academic librarians who interact with researchers who would like to predict future academic impact of their documents can be advised to consider Mendeley readerships with some level of confidence compared to RG reads. These results point to the importance of constant self-evaluation by researchers to ensure that they have balanced profiles across the three main bibliographic databases that are also considered for ratings. These results point to the relevancy of GS to evaluate research beyond the academy. Social implications The fact that researchers are contributing research that seeks to improve the general welfare of the population (beyond the academy) is a positive sign as society look up to researchers and research to solve their socio-economic problems. Social media play an important role as they serve as indicators that indicators point to wider research impacts and wider access by many different groups of people including the members of society at large. They point to research that is accessible to not only researchers and those who have access to their research but also the society at large. Originality/value Although the practice of rating researchers is common in different research ecosystems, the researchers could not find any evidence of studies conducted using a combination of bibliometrics and altmetrics to asses rated researchers’ output. This study covers and compares social impact based on data obtained from two academic social media sites and three main bibliographic databases (GS, Scopus and WoS).

In the last 3 years, several new (free) sources for academic publication and citation data have joined the now well-established Google Scholar, complementing the two traditional commercial data sources: Scopus and the Web of Science. The most important of these new data sources are Microsoft Academic (2016), Crossref (2017) and Dimensions (2018). Whereas Microsoft Academic has received some attention from the bibliometric community, there are as yet very few studies that have investigated the coverage of Crossref or Dimensions. To address this gap, this brief letter assesses Crossref and Dimensions coverage in comparison to Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science through a detailed investigation of the full publication and citation record of a single academic, as well as six top journals in Business & Economics. Overall, this first small-scale study suggests that, when compared to Scopus and the Web of Science, Crossref and Dimensions have a similar or better coverage for both publications and citations, but a substantively lower coverage than Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic. If our findings can be confirmed by larger-scale studies, Crossref and Dimensions might serve as good alternatives to Scopus and the Web of Science for both literature reviews and citation analysis. However, Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic maintain their position as the most comprehensive free sources for publication and citation data.

Science is increasingly expected to help address grand challenges and societal problems such as tackling obesity, climate change, and pandemics. It is important to understand the different research options than can help to tackle these problems, and to consider the directions in which scientific research should be developed. Bibliometrics can provide helpful tools for developing representations of the existing "supply" of science. However, these representations depend on the data and methods used. Bibliometric tools or indicators, therefore, often reflect choices made in data collection and treatment. Conventional bibliometric analyses are biased against non-English languages, applied research, the social sciences and humanities, and interdisciplinary research. This study investigated the biases of available databases in the representation of research topics, particularly those related to developing countries and topics potentially relevant to disenfranchised populations.
\nIn spite of notable differences between the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, comparisons between these two main databases have produced similar rankings of publication production by country in different fields. When intergovernmental agencies benchmark science, these two databases continue to be used. However, the partial coverage of these main commercial databases may lead to serious misrepresentation of science in developing countries. There is a need to improve scientometric indicators to properly evaluate global science.
\nAgricultural research is an important endeavour in developing countries. Scientists are under considerable pressure from stakeholders to solve local problems rather than contribute to the development of "universal" knowledge. This study focused on rice because it is a staple crop for millions of people across the world. Rice research was at the core of the green revolution and it sparked numerous controversies relating to the impoverishment of diets, overuse of water, exhaustion of soils, and pollution. Given the applied orientation of rice research, the local specificity of the topics, and the relative lack of relevance of the topic for many developed countries, rice research is an interesting case to test the extent of coverage by the main bibliographic databases.
\nThis study investigated biases in rice research by comparing coverage of WoS and Scopus with CAB Abstracts (Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International, CABI), which is a specialized agriculture and environment database with a broader coverage of developing countries. The second contribution was to describe a substantive bias in coverage of different research topics. Third, the potential effects of these biases on policy were explored.

El objetivo de este trabajo fue conocer y analizar la presencia de las revistas de ciencias de la salud, presentes en la red SciELO, en las principales bases de datos bibliográficas, con el fin de conocer sus datos de circulación y visibilidad. A partir de los resultados obtenidos se pudo concluir que las colecciones de Brasil y Colombia fueron las que presentaron mayores niveles de circulación en las bases de datos bibliográficas estudiadas y, en consecuencia, una mayor visibilidad internacional. La mayor presencia fue en las bases LILACS y Scopus que duplicaron los datos de MEDLINE, Web of Science o Embase; la presencia en CINHAL o PsycINFO fue poco más que testimonial. Las publicaciones en inglés obtuvieron mejores resultados en relación a su circulación.

Variation in Results of Three Biology‐Focused Search Engines: A Case Study Using North American Tree Species

This article discusses the method of calculating the disruption index (D index) based on COCI (the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations), breaks through the difficulties brought by the acquisition of massive citation data and verifies the reliability of the method of calculating the disruption index based on open citation data based on empirical research. Through empirical research, we found that (1) there is little difference in the number of citation data of focus papers in Web of Science (WoS) and COCI; (2) the levels of disruptive innovation of the papers calculated based on the WoS and COCI are significantly strongly correlated; (3) among the D index and related extended indicators calculated based on COCI, [Formula: see text] has the strongest correlation with peer-review indicators, which is consistent with the calculation results based on WoS. Given the broad disciplinary coverage of COCI, although it has not yet been able to fully replace the function of commercial citation databases in research assessment, it can undoubtedly serve as an important source of citation data for further the disruption index and other scientometrics research thereafter.

In light of the ongoing transformation of scholarly publishing toward open access, libraries need data-based tools that enable them to make decisions that respond to the challenges posed by this shift. Tasks such as collection development, applications for funding, or consulting researchers on publication venues require a solid base of data, which is not always easily available to librarians. Funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), the Open Access Monitor Germany (OAM) aims to provide libraries, funders, and researchers with a freely available tool that presents data on publications and citations for analysis. The OAM records the publication output of German academic institutions in scientific journals. Through analyses of subscription fees and (open access) publication fees, it helps to monitor and support the transition of the publishing system toward an open access system. To this end, data from existing sources are collated within an expanded database, made available to users in an open interface, and disseminated by means of scientific publications. The OAM draws on sources such as Unpaywall, Dimensions, Web of Science, Scopus, and OpenAPC. Unpaywall is used as a central data source for publication metadata including open access availability; this data is then matched with Crossref data for journal-level metadata and finally with Dimensions, Web of Science and Scopus data for affiliations and citation data. The connection to OpenAPC provides data on publication costs for each participating institution. The interface https://open-access-monitor.de/publications presents users with a wide range of filters that can be used to customize the underlying data in line with specific needs. Users can switch between Dimensions, Web of Science and Scopus affiliations and make use of different analysis types including publication analyses, cost analyses, and citation analyses. Results are presented as tables as well as charts and can be downloaded for further use. In the future, additional data sources including subscriptions to scientific journals and subscription payments will be integrated to allow the shift in payment flows in the changing publication market to be observed. The integration of data from the electronic resource management system LAS:eR has already been initiated and will soon be completed. Moreover, interfaces will be created to connect the Alma and FOLIO systems. Together with data on publication costs, this will provide participating institutions with easily accessible overview of their total costs, thus enabling them to calculate an integrated budget for subscriptions and publications. Institutions using the OAM are advised with regard to analyzing data and technically integrating the OAM into their own applications. Small and medium-sized publishers from German-speaking countries are supported in the negotiation of transformation contracts by means of data from the OAM. The OAM project team also conducts studies that address a number of scientific issues, for example the impact of open access on scientific networks and the role of open access in the field of monographs. The relationship between open access and the citation rates of published works is another possible research area that can be addressed with the help of the OAM.

This publication - based on an article published in 2006 - emphasises the qualities of the current biomedical periodicals of Hungarian editions. The aim of this study was to analyse how Hungarian journals meet the requirements of the scientific aspect and international visibility. Authors evaluated 93 Hungarian biomedical periodicals by 4 viewpoints of the two criteria mentioned above. 35% of the analysed journals complete the attributes of scientific aspect, 5% the international visibility, 6% fulfill all examined criteria, and 25% are indexed in international databases. 6 biomedical Hungarian periodicals covered by each of the three main bibliographic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science) have the best qualities. Authors recommend to improve viewpoints of the scientific aspect and international visibility. The basis of qualitative adequacy are the accurate authors' guidelines, title, abstract, keywords of the articles in English, and the ability to publish on time.

BackgroundMore recently, there was a series of clinical studies focusing on local administration of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in long-bone fracture patients suffering from delayed union and nonunion. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of PRP injection for treatment of patients with long-bone delayed union and nonunion.MethodsRelevant clinical trials were selected by the main bibliographic databases, including Medline, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library, to evaluate the effectiveness of PRP for long-bone fracture patients diagnosed with delayed union or nonunion by two reviewers independently. The main outcomes included healing rate, healing duration, pain relief, functional outcome, and complications.ResultsFinally, thirteen studies including four hundred and fifty-nine participants met the selection criteria and were included in this systematic review. These articles included three randomized controlled studies, one prospective study, and nine retrospective studies. 146 out of 155 (94.19%) patients treated with PRP during operation, and 144 out of 183 (78.69%) patients treated with PRP injection alone, exhibited bone consolidation. The healing rate of the PRP group (85.80%) was higher than that of the control group (60.76%). The mean bony union time of patients treated and untreated with PRP, were, respectively, 4.64 and 5.15 months. Four papers reported that PRP was effective in pain relief of patient with delayed union and nonunion. Complications, including small subcutaneous hematoma, subcutaneous swelling, and postoperative infection, were also reported in enrolled studies.ConclusionsPRP is a promising alternative treatment for patients with long-bone delayed union and nonunion. PRP could successfully promote the healing rate and relieve the pain of patients with delayed union and nonunion. However, the long-term adverse side and functional outcome in application of PRP still need further large-scale trials and long-term follow-up.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/registrationdetails/61dbd2f837e948001e68d5c5/, The identifying number is research registry 7525.

Application of the LCA approach to the citrus production chain – A systematic review

Background: Recently, there is an increasing interest in the therapeutic potential of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for bone fracture treatment. Nevertheless, the effect of PRP for bone fracture treatment remains controversial and is still a matter of discussion. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PRP injection for treatment of bone fracture.Methods: The main bibliographic databases, including Medline, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library, were comprehensively searched for studies focusing on the application of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on bone fracture treatment. All relevant articles were screened for eligibility and subdivided into the preclinical and clinical studies. Data were extracted and presented systematically.Results: Finally, twenty-six in vitro preclinical studies (basic studies), nine in vivo preclinical studies (animal studies), and nine clinical studies, met the selection criteria, and were included in the present systematic review. Preclinical studies showed an overall positive effect of PRP on osteoblast-like cells in vitro and bone healing in animal models. The most used treatment for bone fracture in animal and clinical studies is fixation surgery combined with PRP injection. The clinical studies reported PRP shortened bony healing duration, and had no positive effect on improving the healing rate of closed fractures. However, the results of functional outcomes are controversial. Additionally, compared with control group, PRP would not increase the rate of postoperative wound infection.Conclusion: The present systematic review confirmed the continuing interests of PRP as an additional treatment for bone fracture. Preclinical studies highlighted the potential value of PRP as promising therapy for bone fracture. However, the preclinical evidence did not translate into a similar result in the clinical studies. In addition, types of fractures and procedures of PRP preparation are heterogeneous in enrolled studies, which might result in controversial results. Meanwhile, characteristics of PRP, such as platelet concentration, the numbers of leukocytes, still need to be determined and further research is required.

PurposeSince the development of web 2.0, there has been a paradigm shift in methods of knowledge sharing. This has equally impacted on techniques of research evaluation. Many scholars have argued that the social utilization of research is hardly reflected in the traditional methods of research evaluation. The purpose of this paper is to determine the research impact of Library and Information Science (LIS) journals using Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) and then examine whether there is a correlation between their citations and altmetric attentions.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is an attempt to contribute to this discussion with focus on the field of LIS. This paper adopted descriptive informatics to analyze LIS journals. The paper extracted citation data from WoS, Scopus and GS, and altmetric attentions from 85 LIS journals indexed by WoS. Further, 18 journals with high altmetric attention were identified, while 9 of these maintained consistent presence in the three databases used.FindingsFindings show that of these databases, citation data from GS was found to have a high correlation with altmetric attention, while the other two databases maintained moderate correlations with altmetric attention. The paper also found a positive but non-significant correlation between citation scores and altmetric attention in the nine journals that maintained consistent presence in the three databases.Practical implicationsThe findings of this paper will be useful to librarians in selection of relevant journals for their libraries and also will assist authors in the choice of publication outlets for their papers particularly when considering journals that have visibility and research impact.Originality/valueThe originality of the paper lies on empirical evidences from the citation and altmetric data extracted from the databases used for the paper.

Of this work is to analyze the Russian scientific publication stream on medical rehabilitation against the background of the world array of publications and its forecast for the near future. The data of Web of Science and Scopus DB has investigated. Analysis of Russian scientific publications was carried out at various hierarchical levels of the DB: for Web of Science - across the entire DB (5 sections), under the section «Life Sciences and Biomedicine», under the subsection «Rehabilitation»; for Scopus - in the division of knowledge «Medicine» (SUBJAREA (medi)), as well as in the subject area «Rehabilitation». The publication scientific rating of Russia was evaluated against the background of the world rating. Analysis of DB information was carried out for the period 1991-2018. For the period 1991-2018, the highest quantity of domestic publications on rehabilitation in the international rating databases Web of Science and Scopus was in 1991: 5.5% (3rd place out of 53 in the world ranking) and 2.3% (6th place out of 64), respectively. The forecast of the dynamics of the quantity, taking into account the data of this period, showed that Russia has practically reached this high level in Scopus, and at the current rate of growth in the publication activity of Russian scientists, in the Web of Science, it can only reach it by 2028.

Bibliometric indicators are widely used in evaluating research output. Citation information about a publication can be obtained from various databases like Web of Science (WoS), SCOPUS and Google Scholar. Bibliometricans solely depend on the above databases to get citation data. WoS is considered a credible source for citation data. In this paper, we have tried to study the accuracy of the citation count reported and actually found with special reference to three newspapers namely Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and Guardian. It was found that only 69% of citation data was accurate for above three newspapers.

Ranking of library and information science researchers: Comparison of data sources for correlating citation data, and expert judgments