Comparative Analysis of SCOPUS and Web of Science
1. Introduction
SCOPUS and Web of Science, as the major holders of scholarly bibliographic and citation databases, provide academic researchers with means for assessing published research output, such as counting citations, calculating impact factors both for journals and for authors, as well as conducting the cross-checking process through the database licenses of those of major universities in the world. While both SCOPUS and WOS perform the same functions and have similarities, they also offer different features that make SCOPUS Vs. Web of Science an ongoing topic for academic researchers to engage with. Comparing SCOPUS Vs. Web of Science helps to learn about the distinctive capabilities and provisions of each research engine while also considering how best to make use of periodical data output in particular studies and analyses.
2. Overview of SCOPUS
SCOPUS is a product of Elsevier, which has its origins as a database produced by the company known most widely for publishing the "Sciences" series of journals, of which "The Lancet" is a flagship. SCOPUS was originally conceived in 2004 as a literature database with broad coverage as a response to a database created by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) known as Web of Science, created in part to analyze citations between papers. It has since expanded to include Journal Analyzer, SciVal, a SciVal Spotlight visualization tool, and a News feed highlighting stories in the news citing research tracked by the SCOPUS database.
The initial motivation for the development of SCOPUS was to broaden the scope of ISI’s Web of Science. SCOPUS initially differentiated itself by inclusion of a wider range of publication types and by covering a larger number and broader range of publication outlets. These broadened offerings attracted more authors, which expanded the citation network SCOPUS could create, thereby attracting even more authors. SCOPUS and Web of Science continued to develop the completeness of their indexes within the initially selected parameters for quality and scope; indeed the two databases have begun to look increasingly alike not only in appearance and search functionalities but also within the size and scope of their indexed journals. SCOPUS has advanced beyond a well-designed literature search tool and is increasingly a preferred index for citation analysis, research performance, and bibliometric analysis, all key factors in research output. The interface between scholarly databases and search engines with literature distribution, access, mining, and communication is constantly evolving.
3. Overview of Web of Science
The emergence of citation indexing at the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) which Clarivate Analytics now maintains directly led to a grouping of such indices in the ISI Web of Knowledge. The Science and Social Science Citation Indices were subsequently added, as was the Arts & Humanities Citation Index. The Web of Science–Science Citation Index Expanded, the Social Sciences Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index, collectively comprise the Web of Science Core Collection. SCOPUS, a competing product from Elsevier, offers citation searching, but does not measure bibliometric impact. SCOPUS also covers the same subject areas as the Web of Science. All have similar pricing."SCOPUS Vs. Web of Science" is highly requested by users. While Web of Science and SCOPUS have many similarities, each offers advantages and disadvantages. The Web of Science has a long-standing reputation across the scholarly community of being the most prestigious database in the sciences.
Citation analysis is another area of strength for Web of Science. The two platforms are often compared in terms of user-friendliness; certain user groups have expressed a preference for SCOPUS because its interface is simpler, however SCOPUS follows the common design of a recent Google product. SCOPUS's citation metrics are more intuitive than those found in Web of Science. Anders B. Johnsen et al. show that 'The combined use of Web of Science and Scopus provides more accurate citation counts than their isolated use.' In 2013, the usage of SCOPUS in research output exceeded that of Web of Science.
4. Key Features of SCOPUS
SCOPUS is a bibliographic database containing abstracts and citations for academic journal articles. Launched in November 2004 by Elsevier, it is larger than Web of Science in terms of size, subject area coverage, and number of journals covered. In 2007, the Industry Classification Benchmark was introduced, enabling users to browse SCOPUS data by sector and industry, thereby expanding the scope of analysis from solely academic research to areas such as business intelligence. SCOPUS features a graphing module that visually presents publication trends over time and across subject fields. It supports OpenURL linking and RSS feeds but does not have message posting functions similar to Web of Science.
A key draw of SCOPUS is its SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator, a journal impact metric considered by some to be superior to the traditional Thomson Reuters Impact Factor used in Web of Science. SCOPUS possesses superior integrations with social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter and offers score ranking and sorting based on user input. The SCOPUS database can be queried via both a basic interface—requiring minimal field inputs for quick reference—and an advanced interface, which provides numerous fields and filters to refine search results. Compatibility with reference management tools such as EndNote, Mendeley, and BibTeX further facilitates its use by researchers.
5. Key Features of Web of Science
Key Features of Web of Science
SCOPUS Vs. Web of Science presents two major datasets that allow comparison of Scopus; one from 2000 to the present, and one from 1966 to 2005. Web of Science has a narrower set of records and concentrates on the most important journals from each discipline. Scopus includes more journals—particularly those in the social sciences, arts, and humanities—and a broader range of records is included. Citation analysis is frequently used to determine the quality of published work, the impact of journals, and to identify suitable people or groups for collaboration. The Web of Science databases—SCI, SSCI, and AHCI—are commonly used for this purpose. However, Scopus claims a wider subject area coverage and includes citations for a longer time period than the databases of Web of Science.
The Web of Science interface is generally considered easy to use. It allows access to other ISI databases, such as the Social Sciences Citation Index and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, expanding the available subject area coverage. Both basic and advanced searches are provided. Scopus is integrated with RefWorks, and it is assumed that a similar integration will be available with Web of Science in the future.
6. Database Coverage
The major difference between the aforementioned products of Macrotrend Corporation is the period of time covered. Stock Market Data excels from 2008 onwards and Macrotrends presents data from before 2008. An instrument that uses HTML to access the Macrotrends Free Historical Stock Data can be accessed here.
Comma Separated Values (CSV) files of closing prices, adjusted closing prices, volumes, and monthly dividend data for over 4,000 companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) are available through Macrotrends' Historical Market Data Excel Add-In. These CSV files span more than 80 years, dating back to the early 20th century. They can be used to create graphs similar to those seen in Business Bar Charts. Intraday data dating back to 2008 can be retrieved using the Stock Market Data Service. Although these data are the most recent, they can also be employed to produce Business Bar Charts.
Macrotrends' normal search engine, which covers all their data services, also allows you to look for macroeconomic data. Additional details about these new offerings are available in the announcement of Macrotrends' Historical Market Data Service release.
6.1. Subject Areas
SCOPUS is a multidisciplinary database, covering subjects such as Life Sciences, Health Sciences, Physical Sciences and Social Sciences. The database also covers journals published both in English and non-English. Web of Science is a multidisciplinary database that covers domains such as Science, Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities.
SCOPUS covers only peer-reviewed journals and not conference proceedings, whereas Web of Science covers all collected proceedings. Whereas SCOPUS covers Book Series and Trade Journals and Conference Proceedings, Web of Science covers additional content from Open Access Journals, books, and data sets.
6.2. Types of Publications
Together these databases combine the representation of most areas of research; Web of Science is strongest in natural sciences and engineering and perhaps the social sciences as well, partially due to the longer periods of coverage available for these areas. Scopus is perceived to cover more areas of life sciences, perhaps because of the introduction of current and retrospective coverage of articles in Medline.
Both databases have some weaknesses in covering the arts and humanities. The unusual abbreviations used for arts and humanities titles in the Web of Science database limits natural usability for browsing. Scopus is probably a better database for searching (subject or topic) in arts and humanities areas at this stage, but it still provides shallow coverage for many areas of the arts and humanities compared to the depth and breadth of coverage for most areas in the natural sciences and engineering. Neither database explicitly claims to be strong in these areas, yet it is important to reiterate that some researchers will want to use both databases, namely those in interdisciplinary teams. The nature of their research may demand the use of journals from two or more disciplines to help them advance knowledge creation in their area.
7. Citation Analysis
In general, the ETC classification has included only six classes of scientific document in its calculation of citation indicators like Journal Impact Factor, stating that "only articles or reviews or notes are considered as “primary” and, as such, are the only types of documents that clearly deserve to be cited, and the only types of documents taken into account in the calculations of the Journal Impact Factor".
Jacso has examined frequently cited-based journal ranking ratings generated by the two databases. It was found that SCOPUS-based ratings often lag in time behind parallel WoS-based ratings, sometimes for quite a long period of time. It was also observed that WoS ratings reflecting on certain scientific specialties outside the mainstream show relatively enormous peaks of scientific influence while no such patterns could be traced in SCOPUS-based ratings (using Scimago). Martinez and Pigon have demonstrated that WoS and SCOPUS citation counts yield accurate research performance assessments only when dealing with the scientific impact of Italian universities but less accurate research performances assessments in terms of geographical advantages. Other studies have conducted comparative evaluations of the two databases for citation tracking of drug literature and for highly cited papers in the field of chemistry.
7.1. Citation Metrics in SCOPUS
Citation metrics are widely used to measure important aspects of a research work. Quality of a journal can play an important role in determining the number of citations to an article. Number of citations received by a journal is an important metric to determine the quality and research impact of a particular journal. SCOPUS and Web of Science citation index are the major citation indexes used in research. SCOPUS offers more options to perform citation analysis, as it covers about 21,000 peer reviewed titles from more than 5,000 international publishers. Web of Science index covers more than 1.9 billion cited references (as of September 2008), with coverage beginning as early as 1900 in the Sciences and 1956 in Social Sciences. Web of Knowledge includes databases such as the Web of Science index, the Journal Citation Reports and the Essential Science Indicators. However, citation coverage and citation counts differ, mainly due to differences in database coverage. SCOPUS is typically used to determine exactly how often an article has been cited; Web of Science can analyse who is citing that work or who cited two related papers simultaneously.
7.2. Citation Metrics in Web of Science
Citation analysis is one of the main drivers for citation databases like Web of Science and Scopus. The analysis itself is a tedious and complex process that involves gathering, sorting and ranking all the citing articles published as well as arranging the publications that are cited. Citation data analysis provides insight into the influence and impact of the cited articles. There are many citation impact indicators; the Impact Factor (IF) proposed by Eugene Garfield, founder of Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), is one of the most widespread. It is calculated for the journals that are indexed in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) and in Web of Science.
The Impact Factor calculation is based on the Web of Science citation data. Today, the role of the Web of Science database in institutional assessment is clear. It is the backbone of the Academic Ranking of World Universities compiled by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
Another richness of this database is the creation of the Science Citation Index. It was launched by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), now The Web of Knowledge, Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, Pa, based on the idea that for particular purposes the information contained in the bibliography of an article maybe as important as the article itself. The Science Citation Index in relation to others database, is more comprehensive in the coverage of disciplines and in the indexing of addresses and keywords.
8. User Interface and Experience
Although SCOPUS is newer than Web of Science, many users find it easier to use. Its interface is designed for smooth navigation and simplified operation, reducing the need for extensive training. Care has been taken to ensure the site loads quickly, contributing to an overall pleasant user experience. Web of Science, on the other hand, has remained relatively unchanged over the years. Many users find the design to be plain and somewhat outdated, experiencing a slower response.</p><p>Both databases provide detailed help guides, video tutorials, and newsletters highlighting new services. Users of both SCOPUS and Web of Science give favorable ratings regarding the availability of help. The databases keep users informed of new features and strategies to maximize functionalities through newsletters and other communications. Development team information is accessible via their respective homepages. Both SCOPUS and Web of Science engage users in the development of new features through customer feedback and advisory boards.
9. Search Capabilities
Thanks to SCOPUS and Web of Science's user-friendly feature, new or even experienced researchers can search for a more specific focused research paper via advanced search. It maximizes the probability of finding relevant data and also optimizes the time factor in conducting indepth research. SCOPUS Vs. Web of Science both provide Basic search and also the Advanced search feature.
SCOPUS provides Basic search via "Documents search." It enables researchers to search for documents, patents, and sources, besides focusing on specific articles, topics, affiliations, patents, and journal titles. If one wishes to find an article, searching via Author Name and Author ID is possible, and also via Source Title. Similarly, via the Advanced search, Article-title, Keyword(s), Affiliations, Date, Document type, and language can be combined, thus filtering the articles and narrowing down the search, which optimizes the research work while providing more focused results.
9.1. Basic Search
Basic search at Scopus is fairly straightforward and resembles a simplified search on the Internet. The search box at the top of the page also allows natural language queries, Boolean logic, and nested searches. The available options during the search query allow users to avoid most false positives in the search results.
Basic search is also available at Web of Science. The search box resembles a Web search engine, with no support for natural language queries. The drop-down menu allows the user to select the Boolean operators that go with each search term. Users can restrict their search by topic, title, author, affiliation, journal name, Web of Science category, or publication year.
9.2. Advanced Search
Specific search parameters can be used to obtain a much more precise search result. The SCOPUS database offers an advanced search page with detailed search possibilities. Several entries including logical OR and AND –tags can be entered one after another to create a search string with search parameters in the Search terms field. The field codes described in the information briefing “Scope and coverage of SCOPUS and Web of Science” can be used to specify several aspects of the search. In its Web of Science series, Thomson Reuters has made great efforts in providing an easy-to-use search interface with a few input fields where the user can enter all the search data and use the right syntax and tags to get the required search result.
The SCOPUS advanced search allows the users to formulate a compact yet informative search query by combining field codes and search tags. Frequent use of field codes is convenient for experienced users who want to work quickly and perform several complex queries in a short time. Thomson Reuters’ advanced search page makes searching simple for the occasional user by placing separate search fields and the Boolean items at the appropriate places. The interfaces of both databases provide very different user experiences, yet both appear to be convenient and fruitful. The basic search feature offered by both the databases can be used by a URI student to find relevant information for a research project, but the advanced search feature renders the search more effective and targeted, thereby being useful in reducing search time. Ultimately, the time saved can be productively used in dealing with the research output so obtained.
10. Integration with Reference Management Tools
As the amount of published material grows exponentially, the demand for automated tools to aid researchers in accessing peer-reviewed literature is obvious. Tools supporting search, organization, and citation of scholarly literature are numerous—with new tools, e.g., Scizzle, continue to emerge—and popular. It is therefore no surprise that Scopus and Web of Science have incorporated many time-saving and productivity-enhancing features and functionality.
When analyzing Web of Science and Scopus, which can be grouped under the category of Multidisciplinary Citation Databases, it becomes clear that both offer integrations with reference management software. Reference management tools enable users to collect, organize, cite, and share their research with ease. The basic requirements for such a bibliographic software tool are a high number of users and integration with several services for storing and searching literature, as well as advanced search options and other functionalities that enhance the user experience.
11. Cost and Accessibility
SCOPUS is more expensive than Web of Science, though both rely on access fees. Moreover, due to Web of Science's limited journal coverage, researchers are more likely to publish in journals indexed by SCOPUS, as evidenced by the greater number of open access titles recorded in SCOPUS. The higher cost of SCOPUS may be an important consideration for academic libraries as it can restrict research output.
Databases are one of the principal sources from which the analytical information in the scientific environment is obtained, having, in this way, a major role in any research field. Other services accessible through databases are particularly useful and facilitate the work of researchers; for example, the possibility of exporting the search result into reference management software, such as RefWorks, EndNote, and Mendeley, as well as reviewing the cited references of an article and those that have cited the article. Although it is generally known that Web of Science possesses an excellent searching interface, users find Scopus easier to use, mainly because the design is simple, clear, and intuitive. A basic search on Web of Science is more complicated, while both databases are almost similar in advanced searches.
12. Impact on Research Output
The cost and accessibility of SCOPUS and Web of Science also impact research output. Some institutions may choose to subscribe to either one or both databases, dependent on their resources. Moreover, author situations such as country affiliation may also affect the choice of database, influencing research performance. Park and Leydesdorff found that South Korean scientists perform much better when evaluated with the Web of Science than with SCOPUS.
13. Comparative Studies
The comparative analysis of SCOPUS and Web of Science plays an essential role in understanding their respective influences on scholarly studies. Both of these databases, produced by commercial publishers, require substantial investments to index, and consequently, they generate significant revenues. Studies have sought to determine the superiority of one over the other, with some findings highlighting SCOPUS's higher coverage in certain fields. Additionally, contrasting databases of citation analysis provides insight into their relative effectiveness.
The WOS list extends across 256 subject areas, whereas the SCOPUS database encompasses 27 major subject areas comprising over 300 sub-subjects. WOS indexes articles, proceedings, and patents, and its citation analysis includes bibliographic information and cited references. SCOPUS also contains searchable titles, abstracts, keywords, references, and citations; however, the citation analysis is limited to the period from 1996 to the present. Furthermore, the time frame of these databases has a discernible impact on both the citation counts of individual researchers and the h-index scores of journals. Cost considerations remain prohibitive, as subscription fees for these databases are extraordinarily expensive relative to the budgets of most libraries.
13.1. Previous Research Findings
‘SCOPUS Vs. Web of Science” research papers in such diverse area as disease epidemiology, research and information literacy, information pollution, open access journals, topic benchmarking, etc. Comparative aspect varies; SCOPUS and Web of Science are compared with each other, or with other information resources. An appropriate selection is considered.
Research has covered not only topic/scopus information but also its use and impact. Examples include information related to “COVID-19 / Coronavirus / Corona SARS CoV2” and analysis of the “Top 50 papers on stroke.” The latters addresses common pitfalls and limitations, and also suggests possible future directions based on the “Hot Papers” identified through the Clarivate Emerging Scholar Citation Indicators. These indicators take into account top-scoring early career researchers’ impact in ten broad research fields—semiconductor technology, computer games, art protection, clinical psychology, cancer diagnosis, coronaviruses, remote sensing, stroke, economics, and sports sciences.
13.2. Case Studies
Two case studies allow for comparison of SCOPUS and Web of Science. The first focuses on faculty members at the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Universitas Padjadjaran from 2011 through 2015—the overall bibliographic characteristics of the 216 who authored Scopus-indexed documents, citation impact calculated through Scopus, and correlation with the corresponding rankings using the Web of Science bibliographic attributes.
The second case investigates faculty members at the University of Sains Malaysia who published in both WoS- and Scopus-indexed journals from 2000 to 2014. The study explores differences in the ranking of researchers based on citation impact data from Scopus and WoS. It is found that regardless of faculty members’ citation counts in the two coverage indices, their ranks do not differ significantly, confirming that both indices reflect differences in performance of the academics with similar patterns.
14. Limitations of SCOPUS
SCOPUS Vs. Web of Science: Different limitations apply to either one or both databases. As is the case with almost any database, the quality of SCOPUS and Web of Science is limited by the quality of the data on which they are based. When the data have errors or are incomplete, the database will also be of inferior quality. Institutions responsible for completion and quality of data are the publishers. Generally, up until now, the teachers/researchers have not actively used these databases for their own work. Teachers and researchers use these databases chiefly to verify that the research they are planning has not been conducted previously and for finding papers on interesting topics once the research is concluded.
Because of their nature and intent, SCOPUS and Web of Science need to be purchased. Usually, thanks to institutional subscriptions, they are accessible free of charge for university teachers and researchers. Students, high school teachers, and other potential users — who have less money — are limited in their usage, though the institutions do subscribe to it because their teachers and researchers write for international journals that have to be quoted in citation indexes. For the same reason, only cited authors are consistently quoted in databases—yet many teachers and researchers have not been cited yet. Therefore, the approach of institutions outside Western countries is rather inconsistent. They expect a lot from institutions like SCOPUS and Web of Science, yet these institutions do not provide accessibility.
15. Limitations of Web of Science
Similar to SCOPUS, there are numerous shortcomings associated with Web of Science. The drawbacks of the Web of Science in the context of a search are that it lacks visualization of the results, is not user-friendly, offers limited citation exporting for visualization, and does not allow the comparison of results from different databases. With regards to a crawling engine, the Web of Science does not support a comprehensive citation search and is not suitable for long-term analysis. In terms of cost, it is considerably more expensive than Google Scholar and SCOPUS, and only a small percentage of researchers and students have access to it. In the case of social science disciplines, Google Scholar provides greater coverage than Web of Science.
Addressing the limitations of the Web of Science, Vanecek pointed out that the quality of the data collected is dependent on the objective of the analysis, and results can vary between the Web of Science and ResearcherID. Finch emphasized that the discipline of the researcher and the nature of the study dictate the choice of the database, with neither SCOPUS nor Web of Science being universally superior. Although SCOPUS is advantageous for output measurement, Web of Science stands out in citation analysis. Consequently, the selection of a database should be guided by the specific aims of the research.
16. Future Trends in Scholarly Databases
The union catalog WorldCat, containing more than 72 million listings in all known formats, makes it easy to locate books, journals, and other materials and physical locations in libraries worldwide. Google Scholar is a search engine that allows scholarly literature to be searched across many disciplines and sources.
Currently, there is a distinct gap in the provision of reliable and convenient interfaces for dataset search. Although some discovery services have begun looking at dataset indexing, searching, and storage, there remains an under provision in discoverability and reuse for this form of information. There is much enthusiasm for adopting standard citation practices for datasets, and services are in development to provide citations for any record or document that exists as an independent entity.
17. Recommendations for Researchers
SCOPUS and Web of Science are major scholarly search engines that provide research services for both researchers and students. Their multifarious functionalities are conducive to easy usage of the services and convenience in extracting information for academic disciplines. Even though SCOPUS is larger in size than Web of Science (WoS), WoS consists of very high-quality journals. Covering a wide area in both the fields of science and arts, social sciences, and humanities, SCOPUS is an ideal database. Moreover, SCOPUS caters to specific topics and is often preferred by users due to an easy user interface. SCOPUS is considered a better database as it maintains a careful record of h-index and citations. SCOPUS has a unique functionality for delivering information about journal ranking of h-index and also provides graphical visualization. Comparing SCOPUS and WoS on the basis of Basic Search and Advance Search, it is perceived that the Basic Search feature of WoS is slightly more user-friendly than SCOPUS, but in terms of Advance Search, SCOPUS has an added advantage in applying useful search tags and resulting relevant information.
The researchers never desire to allow the cost factor to influence their research output. SCOPUS is a product of Elsevier, managed on a commercial basis, which causes it to have a primary functional cost. Web of Science is also costly but demonstrates a good fit of price to quality and coverage. Being paid databases, they provide only abstract information, and each leading publisher in the world restricts full-text access in favor of paid subscriptions. SCOPUS and WoS are the most acceptable research databases, and users consider the information provided on them authentic and reliable. The coverage of Web of Science is useful in various aspects. However, at the individual level, users find it rather poor in some fields. Overall, SCOPUS- coverages, search results, and user interface are found to be better than those of WoS.
18. Conclusion
Google, Yahoo, Amazon, eBay, and all other search engines tend to combine all different databases available on the Internet and display all search results from these databases in the human-readable form without showing from which database the particular search result has come. However, in case of Google and other natural-language processing-oriented search engines, the order of the search results depends on some internal secret algorithm based on natural-language processing and page ranking based on link analysis.
In this perspective, SCOPUS Vs. Web of Science becomes a natural question for any researcher while choosing the appropriate database for their research work. Therefore, the present study endeavors to compare SCOPUS Vs. Web of Science based on some important features and keywords-based searches related to the above two most popular databases.
- Citation analysis and peer ranking of Australian social science journals
Haddow, G. & Genoni, P. (2010).
Read more here
- Mapping Literacies in the Tourism Labor Market: A Cross-Database Comparison
Soria Leyva, E. & Beatriz Hernandez Lara, A. (2024).
Read more here
- Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic
Visser, M., Jan van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2020).
Read more here
- Comparative Analysis of Search Features of Scopus and Web of Science
Gireesh Kumar, T. (2013).
Read more here
- Web of Science versus Scopus: Journal Coverage Overlap Analysis
Tabacaru, S. (2019).
Read more here
- Finding Citations to Social Work Literature: The Relative Benefits of Using Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar
Lasda Bergman, E. M. (2012).
Read more here
- Comparative Analysis of the Bibliographic Data Sources Dimensions and Scopus: An Approach at the Country and Institutional Levels
Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Chinchilla-RodrÃguez, Z., Mendoza, A., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2021).
Read more here
- A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases
Aghaei Chadegani, A., Salehi, H., Md Yunus, M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ale Ebrahim, N. (2013).
Read more here
- Comparing Bibliometric Statistics Obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus
Archambault, E., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Lariviere, V. (2009).
Read more here
- Web of Science and Scopus language coverage
Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Vera-Baceta, M. A. (2019).
Read more here
Shows how to search scholarly literature and some of the special citation features available in SCOPUS and Web of Science databases.