Abstract
Google Scholar and Scopus are recent rivals to Web of Science. In this paper we examined these three citation databases through the citations of the book “Introduction to informetrics” by Leo Egghe and Ronald Rousseau. Scopus citations are comparable to Web of Science citations when limiting the citation period to 1996 and onwards (the citation coverage of Scopus)—each database covered about 90% of the citations located by the other. Google Scholar missed about 30% of the citations covered by Scopus and Web of Science (90 citations), but another 108 citations located by Google Scholar were not covered either by Scopus or by Web of Science. Google Scholar performed considerably better than reported in previous studies, however Google Scholar is not very “user-friendly” as a bibliometric data collection tool at this point in time. Such “microscopic” analysis of the citing documents retrieved by each of the citation databases allows us a deeper understanding of the similarities and the differences between the databases.
Access this article
Rent this article via DeepDyve
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11192-010-0185-9/MediaObjects/11192_2010_185_Fig1_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11192-010-0185-9/MediaObjects/11192_2010_185_Fig2_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11192-010-0185-9/MediaObjects/11192_2010_185_Fig3_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11192-010-0185-9/MediaObjects/11192_2010_185_Fig4_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11192-010-0185-9/MediaObjects/11192_2010_185_Fig5_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11192-010-0185-9/MediaObjects/11192_2010_185_Fig6_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11192-010-0185-9/MediaObjects/11192_2010_185_Fig7_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11192-010-0185-9/MediaObjects/11192_2010_185_Fig8_HTML.gif)
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bakalbassi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J. & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Research Libraries 3(7).
Bar-Ilan, J. (2006a). H-index for Price medalists revisited. ISSI Newsletter, 2(1), 3–5.
Bar-Ilan, J. (2006b). An ego-centric citation analysis of the works of Michael O. Rabin based on multiple citation indexes. Information Processing and Management, 42(6), 1553–1566.
Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?—A comparison of WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.
Bauer, K., Bakalbassi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html.
Gavel, Y., & Iselid, L. (2008). Web of Science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Information Review, 32(1), 8–21.
Giles, J. (2005). Start your engines. Nature News, 438, 554–555.
Hartman, K. A., & Mullen, L. B. (2008). Google Scholar and academic libraries: An update. New Library World, 109(5/6), 2122–2222.
Harzing, A. K., & Van Der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 6, 61–73.
Jacso, P. (2006). Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review, 30(3), 297–309.
Jacso, P. (2008). Google Scholar revisited. Online Information Review, 32(1), 102–114.
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055–1065.
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics, 74(2), 273–294.
López-Illescas, C., Moya-Anegón, F., & Moed, H. F. (2008). Coverage and citation impact of oncological journals in the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 304–316.
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.
Meho, L. & Rogers, Y. (2008). Citation counting, citation ranking and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: A comparison between Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1711–1726.
Moed, H. F. & Visser, M. (2007). Developing bibliometric indicators of research performance in computer science: An exploratory study. CWTS Report 2007-01.
Moed, H. F. & Visser, M. (2008). Comparing Web of science and Scopus on a paper-by-paper basis. In Book of Abstracts of the 10th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators.
Mullen, L. B., & Hartman, K. A. (2006). Google Scholar and the Library Web Site: The early response by ARL Libraries. College & Research Libraries, 67(2), 106–122.
Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A., & Wrede, C. (2006). The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(2), 127–141.
Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 161–169.
Noruzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: A new generation of citation indexes. Libri, 55(4), 170–180.
Rahm, E., & Thor, A. (2005). Citation analysis of database publications. ACM SIGMOD Record, 34(4), 48–53.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bar-Ilan, J. Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 82, 495–506 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0185-9
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0185-9