Citations are a crucial metric in academic assessment. Whether that’s for promotion and research funding, or any institutional rankings. Citation counts are commonly used to evaluate the impact and relevance that comes with the scholarly work.
Among the most prestigious citation databases in the academic landscape are Scopus and Web of Science which are both managed by Carafate Analytics. Both databases provide tracking of citations and indexing of publications and researchers.
However, the main question is whether their citations are counted equally in the evaluations. The answer to this question is multifaceted, and it depends on the context the evaluation purpose, and the institute’s policies. In this blog, we will dive into whether citations from Scopus and Web of Science are counted equally, and how Royal Article aids within the citation process.
Scopus Vs Web Of Science:
Before we know how citations are valued, it is necessary to understand the difference between the two databases:
Web of Science has been seen as an elite standard in citation indexing. It was made in the 1960s by Eugene Garfield and has various indexes, like the Emerging Sources Citations Index, etc. It is known for its very extensive selection and high standards for journal inclusion, which often leads to greater quality.
Scopus, which was launched in 2004 is a relatively newer database but has a broader scope and more journals than WOS. Its journals are particularly in engineering, and it covers a variety of journals, conference proceedings, and books.
Are Citation Counts Equal In Methodology?
Even though Scopus and WOS both are databases that provide citation metrics, despite that they use different journals and sources to see the numbers, which means that:
A single article’s citation count may vary when looked at in Scopus and Web of Science.
An author’s h-index is used to measure the productivity and impact of citations which can also vary across the 2 databases.
Journals that are indexed in one database may not be indexed in the other database.
Citations tend to be higher in Scopus than in Web of Science. This is because of the higher coverage for newer journals, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that higher volume gives you higher value.
Researcher Profiles:
Researchers often find that the h-index and citations differ between Scopus and Web of Science. This is due to the following reasons:
- Scopus has a more prestigious and better profile than WOS, which lessens the errors in author identification.
- Scopus tends to have faster citations than WOS, while WOS takes time to work on the citations.
- Sometimes the journals indexed in Scopus may not be indexed in WOS.
How institutions treat citations from Scopus and WOS largely depends on the context in which they are looking at them. Many institutions, universities, and research councils either use one of the databases or prioritize one over the other.
For instance, the academic ranking of world universities, which is commonly known as the Shanghai ranking, uses WOS for citations and indexing. On the other hand, the Times Higher Education rankings prefer using Scopus provided by Elsevier. While in National research assessments, the choice of database can change.
For example, in the UK, there is no preference for a specific database for citations; however allows citations from WOS, while in Australia, the evaluation is more prominently seen as in China. The universities and funding bodies prefer WOS-indexed publications over those of Scopus. As the preferences can change, the citations from such databases aren’t always taken into account, and the choice depends on the database quality and availability of analytical tools.
Evaluation Systems:
Scopus and WOS can offer biometric analysis tools such as Incites and Social. These platforms allow the institutions to standardize the performance of research impact and support strategic planning because these institutions are connected to the respective databases, and the institutions may align their evaluation based on these metrics.
For instance, using Scala might mean that the institution or university would base its evaluation on the database Scopus.
Converging Trends:
Despite the differences, there is an increased need for clarity and evenness in the research evaluation. Initiatives like the San Francisco and Leiden Manifesto prefer the responsible use of metrics and focus on the fact that they need to consider the context quality and diversity in evaluations.
Some institutions are beginning to accept citations from both databases or at least put them in a broader context. Tools like Multisource and lens.org combine the citation data and give an overall view of impact.
Influence And Impact On Researchers And Disciplines:
The treatment of Scopus and WOS citations also varies by category in fields like natural sciences and engineering .There is a good amount of coverage and citations. On the other hand, social sciences, arts, and humanities are often less represented in WOS, which has limited books, book chapters, and journals.
Scopus, a prestigious database, has attempted to lessen the gap by including journals and tons of indexed sources, which results in researchers achieving higher citation counts in Scopus than in WOS. This can have its advantages in places where Scopus data is accepted.
Despite that, in disciplines that have a high reliance on books, the work of Scopus may fall short however, there are alternative metrics like Google Scholar that may be used as well. This variation means that citations from Scopus and WOS may be evaluated differently depending on the field. A person majoring in economics may benefit from the WOS metrics, while a computer science major may benefit from conferences indexed by Scopus, thus relying more on Scopus citations.
Conclusion:
In summary, the citations from Scopus and Web of Science are not universally regarded equally as evaluation metrics. The weight of evaluation mainly depends on the context in which we are looking, such as the institution’s policies and academic discipline, and the availability of academic tools.
Even though both databases are respectable and prestigious, they both have differences in coverage and scope, metrics, and indexing; thus, the evaluations may vary. As the world of academia moves towards more concise and clear research assessment, the hope is that citations from both databases will be counted equally, not as competition but as complementary databases.
The Royal Article team takes into account how the citations are regarded and then utilizes their expertise to polish your paper and use better citations with regard to the subject of your research, its target demographic, and geographic location.
