Comparative analysis of the capabilities of WoS and eLibrary for analyzing bibliographic networks
Research Article
How to Cite
Maltseva D.V., Pavlova I.A., Kapustina L.V., Vashchenko V.A., Fiala D. Comparative analysis of the capabilities of WoS and eLibrary for analyzing bibliographic networks. Sociology: methodology, methods, mathematical modeling (Sociology: 4M). 2024. No. 56. P. 7-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/4m.2023.32.1.1 (in Russ.).
Abstract
This article presents a comparative analysis of two major scientific publication databases: Web of Science Core Collection and eLibrary – to identify their differences and unique opportunities for exploration of bibliographic networks of Russian scientific authors. Current shortage of tools and approaches for collection, processing and analysis of bibliographic data in the Russian language constitutes the relevance of this study. Empirical analysis is based on comparison of respective arrays of scientific publications in the field of sociology over the period of 2010-2021. We propose a set of comparison criteria including those related to the procedure of data access, quality of data management, quantitative and qualitative features of the data. Inspection of the databases based on the proposed criteria aids in identification of intersections between both the collections and the respective qualitative observations about them. We make conclusions regarding the comparative advantages and weaknesses of both databases in regards to their potential as the sole data source for bibliographic studies, and make recommendations for their effective use in research on Russian science.
Keywords:
network analysis, comparative analysis, bibliographic databases, bibliographic networks, eLibrary, Web of Science
References
Bar-Ilan J. Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century – A review, Journal of informetrics. 2008, vol. 2, p. 1–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2007.11.001.
Mingers J., Leydesdorff L. A review of theory and practice in scientometrics, European journal of operational research, 2015, vol. 246, no. 1, p. 1–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002.
Rousseau R., Egghe L., Guns R. Becoming metric-wise: A bibliometric guide for researchers, ed. by W. Glänzel [et al.]. Cambridge, MA: Chandos Publishing, 2018. 850 p. ISBN: 0081024754, 9780081024751.
Batagelj V., Doreian P., Ferligoj A., Kejžar N. Understanding large temporal networks and spatial networks: Exploration, pattern searching, visualization and network evolution. Hoboken, NJ: WileyBlackwell, 2014, 464 p. ISBN: 978-1-118-91537-0.
Moiseev S.P., Maltseva D.V. Source selection for systematic literature reviews: a comparison of expert and algorithmic approaches (in Russian), Sotsiologiya 4M (Sociology: methodology, methods, mathematical modeling), 2018, no. 47, p. 7–43.
Bylucheva Е.Е., Maltseva D.V. Identifying relevant topics in sociology: a bibliographic network analysis view (in Russian), Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 2020, no. 6 (160), p. 113–140. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2020.6.971.
Harzing A.W., Alakangas S. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison, Scientometrics, 2016, vol. 106, p. 787–804. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9.
Singh V.K., Singh P., Karmakar M. [et al.] The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis, Scientometrics, 2021, vol. 126, p. 5113–5142. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5.
Martín-Martín A., Thelwall M., Orduna-Malea E., Delgado López-Cózar E. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations, Scientometrics, 2021, vol. 126, no. 1, p. 871–906. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4.
Harzing A.W. Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science? Scientometrics, 2019, vol. 120, no. 1, p. 341–349. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y.
Zhu J., Liu W. A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers, Scientometrics, 2020, vol. 123, no. 1, p. 321–335. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8.
Gusenbauer M. Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases, Scientometrics, 2019, vol. 118, no.1, p. 177–214. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5.
Moed H.F., Markusova V., Akoev M. Trends in Russian research output indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, Scientometrics, 2018, vol. 116, p. 1153–1180. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2769-8.
Vera-Baceta M.A., Thelwall M., Kousha K. Web of Science and Scopus language coverage, Scientometrics, 2019, vol. 121, no. 3, p. 1803–1813. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03264-z.
Ruiz-Pérez R., López-Cózar E.D., Jiménez-Contreras E. Spanish personal name variations in national and international biomedical databases: implications for information retrieval and bibliometric studies, Journal of the medical library association, 2002, vol. 90, no. 4, p. 411–430.
Adriaanse L.S., Rensleigh C. Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison, The Electronic Library, 2013, vol. 31, no. 6, p. 727–744. DOI: 10.1108/EL-12-2011-0174.
Eremenko G.O. Comparing publication levels of Russian scientists across Web of Science, Scopus and RSCI databases (in Russian), NAB (Scientific Electoring Library), 28.02.2020, URL: https://elibrary.ru/wos_scopus_rsci.asp (date of access: 01.12.2023).
Moskaleva O., Pislyakov V., Sterligov I. [et al.] Russian index of science citation: Overview and review, Scientometrics, 2018, vol. 116, p. 449–462. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2758-y.
Gorin S.V., Koroleva A.M., Gerasimov A.N., Voronov A.A. The Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI): the first three years (2016–2018), European Science Editing, 2020, vol. 46. DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e51051.68
Maltseva D.V., Vashchenko V.A., Kapustina L.V. Methodology of processing bibliographic data in Russian language to construct collaboration networks (using the example of the eLibrary database) (in Russian), Sotsiologiya 4M (Sociology: methodology, methods, mathematical modeling), 2022, no. 54–55, p. 45–78. DOI: 10.19181/4m.2022.31.1-2.2.
Batagelj V. WoS2Pajek. Networks from web of science, Version 1.5 (2017). URL: http://vladowiki.fmf.uni-lj.si/doku.php?id=pajek:wos2pajek (date of access: 01.12.2023).
Mingers J., Leydesdorff L. A review of theory and practice in scientometrics, European journal of operational research, 2015, vol. 246, no. 1, p. 1–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002.
Rousseau R., Egghe L., Guns R. Becoming metric-wise: A bibliometric guide for researchers, ed. by W. Glänzel [et al.]. Cambridge, MA: Chandos Publishing, 2018. 850 p. ISBN: 0081024754, 9780081024751.
Batagelj V., Doreian P., Ferligoj A., Kejžar N. Understanding large temporal networks and spatial networks: Exploration, pattern searching, visualization and network evolution. Hoboken, NJ: WileyBlackwell, 2014, 464 p. ISBN: 978-1-118-91537-0.
Moiseev S.P., Maltseva D.V. Source selection for systematic literature reviews: a comparison of expert and algorithmic approaches (in Russian), Sotsiologiya 4M (Sociology: methodology, methods, mathematical modeling), 2018, no. 47, p. 7–43.
Bylucheva Е.Е., Maltseva D.V. Identifying relevant topics in sociology: a bibliographic network analysis view (in Russian), Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 2020, no. 6 (160), p. 113–140. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2020.6.971.
Harzing A.W., Alakangas S. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison, Scientometrics, 2016, vol. 106, p. 787–804. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9.
Singh V.K., Singh P., Karmakar M. [et al.] The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis, Scientometrics, 2021, vol. 126, p. 5113–5142. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5.
Martín-Martín A., Thelwall M., Orduna-Malea E., Delgado López-Cózar E. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations, Scientometrics, 2021, vol. 126, no. 1, p. 871–906. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4.
Harzing A.W. Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science? Scientometrics, 2019, vol. 120, no. 1, p. 341–349. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y.
Zhu J., Liu W. A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers, Scientometrics, 2020, vol. 123, no. 1, p. 321–335. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8.
Gusenbauer M. Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases, Scientometrics, 2019, vol. 118, no.1, p. 177–214. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5.
Moed H.F., Markusova V., Akoev M. Trends in Russian research output indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, Scientometrics, 2018, vol. 116, p. 1153–1180. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2769-8.
Vera-Baceta M.A., Thelwall M., Kousha K. Web of Science and Scopus language coverage, Scientometrics, 2019, vol. 121, no. 3, p. 1803–1813. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03264-z.
Ruiz-Pérez R., López-Cózar E.D., Jiménez-Contreras E. Spanish personal name variations in national and international biomedical databases: implications for information retrieval and bibliometric studies, Journal of the medical library association, 2002, vol. 90, no. 4, p. 411–430.
Adriaanse L.S., Rensleigh C. Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison, The Electronic Library, 2013, vol. 31, no. 6, p. 727–744. DOI: 10.1108/EL-12-2011-0174.
Eremenko G.O. Comparing publication levels of Russian scientists across Web of Science, Scopus and RSCI databases (in Russian), NAB (Scientific Electoring Library), 28.02.2020, URL: https://elibrary.ru/wos_scopus_rsci.asp (date of access: 01.12.2023).
Moskaleva O., Pislyakov V., Sterligov I. [et al.] Russian index of science citation: Overview and review, Scientometrics, 2018, vol. 116, p. 449–462. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2758-y.
Gorin S.V., Koroleva A.M., Gerasimov A.N., Voronov A.A. The Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI): the first three years (2016–2018), European Science Editing, 2020, vol. 46. DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e51051.68
Maltseva D.V., Vashchenko V.A., Kapustina L.V. Methodology of processing bibliographic data in Russian language to construct collaboration networks (using the example of the eLibrary database) (in Russian), Sotsiologiya 4M (Sociology: methodology, methods, mathematical modeling), 2022, no. 54–55, p. 45–78. DOI: 10.19181/4m.2022.31.1-2.2.
Batagelj V. WoS2Pajek. Networks from web of science, Version 1.5 (2017). URL: http://vladowiki.fmf.uni-lj.si/doku.php?id=pajek:wos2pajek (date of access: 01.12.2023).
Article
Received: 11.09.2023
Accepted: 18.07.2024
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
APA
Maltseva, D. V., Pavlova, I. A., Kapustina, L. V., Vashchenko, V. A., & Fiala, D. (2024). Comparative analysis of the capabilities of WoS and eLibrary for analyzing bibliographic networks. Sociology: Methodology, Methods, Mathematical Modeling (Sociology: 4M), (56), 7-68. https://doi.org/10.19181/4m.2023.32.1.1
Section
GENERAL ISSUES OF METHODOLOGY OF NETWORK ANALYSIS
