This paper uses macrolevel bibliometric indicators to compare results obtained from theWoS and Scopus. It shows that the correlations between the measures obtained with both databases for the number of papers and the number of citations received by countries, as well as for their ranks, are extremely high.
In this post, we provide empirical insights into the value of Crossref as a new source of citation data. We compare Crossref with WoS and Scopus, focusing on the citation data that is available in the different data sources. Our analysis will show that more than three-quarters of the references in WoS and more than two-thirds of the Scopus references can be found in Crossref, with about half of these references being openly available. On the other hand, it will also be shown that millions of references are missing in Crossref. These references occur in publications that have been deposited in Crossref without their references.
For more than 40 years, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now part of
Thomson-Reuters), produced the only available database making possible citation
analysis, the Web of Science (WoS). Now, another company, Reed-Elsevier, has created
its own bibliographic database, Scopus, available since 2002. For those who perform
bibliometric analysis and comparisons of countries or institutions, the existence of these
two major databases raises the important question of the comparability and stability of
rankings obtained from different data sources