Comparative Evaluation of Content Quality: Scopus and ISI (Web of Science)

Document Type : مقالات پژوهشی


1 MA of Library & Information Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University

2 Faculty Member of Shahed University, Library & Information Sciences Department

3 Faculty Member of Tarbiat Modares University, Library & Information Sciences Department


The main purpose of this research is to compare the Content quality of two citation databases: Scopus and Web of Science. In order to reaching this goal, first of all, final criteria of the content quality evaluation of Scopus & WoS was compiled and then according to this criteria and regarding to the seven general indicators (including: "aim, content & scope", "journal scientific reliability", "authors' reputation", "updating, constancy and stability", "citation quality", "management" and "ease of accessibility, retrieval & usage") the quality of the journal in two subject fields ("art, human and social sciences" & "medical, engineering, agricultural and basic sciences") of two citation databases was surveyed and compared. Results of this research show that in subject field of "art, human and social sciences" in two indicators of "authors' reputation" and "management", the quality of journals in WoS is more than Scopus, but in the next five indicators the quality of the journals in Scopus & WoS are the same. In the other hand, in the subject field of "medical, engineering, agricultural and basic sciences", in three indicators of "journal scientific reliability", "authors' reputation" and "management", the quality of journals in WoS is more than Scopus, but in the indicators of "updating, constancy and stability" and "ease of accessibility, retrieval & usage", the quality of journals in Scopus is more than WoS. Though, in two indicators of "aim, content & scope" and "citation quality" the quality of the journals indexed in Scopus & WoS are the same.


Araujo Ruiz, Juana, [et al] (2005). Cuban scientific articles in ISI Citation Indexes and CubaCiencias databases (1988-2003). Scientometrics. l 65 (2): 161-171.
Bakkalbasi, Nisa., Kathleen, Bauer., Janis Glover and wang Lei. (2006). Three Options for Citation Tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries 3, no. 7, [Online] Available at: [Nov. 26, 2009].
Bollen, Johan, Van de Sampel, Herbert., Joan A. Luce Smith and Rick (2005). Toward Alternative Metircs of Journal Impact: A Coparison of Download and Citation Data.  Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, 41 (6): 1419 -1440.
Burnham J. F. (2006), Scopus database: A review. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3 (1): Retrieved Nov. 4, 2009, from
Carcia, F. A., Teruel, A. G., Caldduch, P. B., Fris, R. R. Blasco, L.C. (2005). A Comparative study of six European databases of medical oriented web resources. Journal of Medical Library Association. 93 (4): 467-479. [Online] Available at: Retrieved 12 Oct 2009.
Franceschet, m (2009). A Cluster Analysis of Scholar and Journal Bibliometric Indicators. Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (10):1950–1964.
Gorraiz, J; Schloegl, C (2008). A bibliometric analysis of pharmacology and pharmacy journals: Scopus versus Web of Science. Journal of Information Science, 34 (5): 715–725.
Horrocks, Gary (2005). Battle of the Giants: A Comparison of Web of Science, Scopus & Google Scholar. London: JIBS, Nov. 2005. [Online] Available at:
Jasco, P. (2004). Scopus. Peter’s Digital Reference Shelf, Sep. 2004. Retrieved Nov. 4, 2008, [Online] Available at:
Jacso, Petter (2005). As We May Search: Comparison of Major Features of the Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar Citaion Based and Cetation-Enhances Databases. Current Science. 89 (9): 1537- 1547.
Kousha, Keyvan, Thelwall, Mike (2007). Google Scholar Citation and Google Web/URL Citations: A Multidiscipline Exploratory Analysis. Journal of The American Society for Information  Science and Technology. 58 (7): 1055-1065.
Laguardia, C. (2005). E-Views and Reviews: Scopus vs. Web of Science. Library Journal, Jan. 15.
Lee, KP. & et al. (2002). Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. JAMA, 287( 21):2805-2808.
Meho, L I; Rogers, Y. (2008). Citation Counting, Citation Ranking, and h-Index of Human-Computer Interaction Researchers: A Comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (11):1711–1726.
Saha, Somnath; Saint, Sanjay; christakis, Dimitry A. (2003). Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91 (1): 42-46.
SCImago. (2007). SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Retrieved April 17, 2010, from
Schloegl, Christian (2004). Impact and relevance of LIS Journals: A scientometric analysis of international and German – Language LIS Journals – citation analysis versus reader survey. Journal of the American society information science and technology. 55 (13):1155 – 1168.
Scopus Content coverage (2009). (Online) Available at:   (Retrieved Jan. 26, 2010).
Scopus Content Coverage (October 2007). (Online) Available at: coverage.pdf  (Retrieved April 12 , 2010).
Testa, James (2009). The Thomson Scientific Journal Selection Process. (online) Available at: (Retrieved May 14 , 2010).
Web of Science Databases. (2010). (Online) Available at: /WOS/h_database.html . (Retrieved Jan. 17 , 2010).