ScholarLens Back to search
2008•Journal of Information ScienceRequires access

A bibliometric analysis of pharmacology and pharmacy journals: Scopus versus Web of Science

Juan Gorraiz, Christian Schloegl

Open publisher page 120 citations

Abstract

Our study examines the suitability of Scopus for bibliometric analyses in comparison with the Web of Science (WOS). In particular we want to explore if the outcome of bibliometric analyses differs between Scopus and WOS and, if yes, in which aspects. Since journal indicators vary among disciplines, we analysed only journals from the subject pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences. Nonetheless, our study has also broader implications. Its major findings are: (a) Each top-100 JCR pharmacy journal was covered by Scopus. (b) The impact factor was higher for 82 and the immediacy index greater for 78 journals in Scopus in 2005. Pharmacy journals with a high impact factor in the JCR usually have a high impact factor in Scopus. (c) Several medium impact journals could be identified in Scopus which were not reported in JCR. (d) The two databases differed in the number of articles within a tolerable margin of deviation for most journals.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Our study examines the suitability of Scopus for bibliometric analyses in comparison with the Web of Science (WOS). In particular we want to explore if the outcome of bibliometric analyses differs between Scopus and WOS and, if yes, in which aspects. Since journal indicators vary among disciplines, we analysed only journals from the subject pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences. Nonetheless, our study has also broader implications. Its major findings are: (a) Each top-100 JCR pharmacy journal was covered by Scopus. (b) The impact factor was higher for 82 and the immediacy index greater for 78 journals in Scopus in 2005. Pharmacy journals with a high impact factor in the JCR usually have a high impact factor in Scopus. (c) Several medium impact journals could be identified in Scopus which were not reported in JCR. (d) The two databases differed in the number of articles within a tolerable margin of deviation for most journals.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 120 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Our study examines the suitability of Scopus for bibliometric analyses in comparison with the Web of Science (WOS). In particular we want to explore if the outcome of bibliometric analyses differs between Scopus and WOS and, if yes, in which aspects. Since journal indicators vary among disciplines, we analysed only journals from the subject pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences. Nonetheless, our study has also broader implications. Its major findings are: (a) Each top-100 JCR pharmacy journal was covered by Scopus. (b) The impact factor was higher for 82 and the immediacy index greater for 78 journals in Scopus in 2005. Pharmacy journals with a high impact factor in the JCR usually have a high impact factor in Scopus. (c) Several medium impact journals could be identified in Scopus which were not reported in JCR. (d) The two databases differed in the number of articles within a tolerable margin of deviation for most journals.

Key concepts: Scopus, Impact factor, Web of science, Pharmacy, Bibliometrics, Library science, MEDLINE, Medicine

Related papers

Related paper 1Related paper 2Related paper 3
Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A bibliometric analysis of pharmacology and pharmacy journals: Scopus versus Web of Science — Research Paper | ScholarLens