The Charleston Advisor / January 2007 www.charlestonco.com 15
Author’s Selected References Contact Information Beall, J. “CSA Illumina.” Charleston Adviser 6, no. 4 (2005): 57. SPORTDiscus Retrieved Tuesday, November 14, 2006 from Charleston Adviser EBSCO Publishing http://www.charlestonco.com/review.cfm?id=224&CFID=1230560&C 10 Estes Sreet FTOKEN=42117712>. Ipswich, MA 01938-0682 “CSA Debuts Illumina(Cambridge Scientific Abstracts Launches Phone: (800) 653-2726 Online Service).” Computers in Libraries 37, no, 1 (March 2005): 25. Fax: (978) 356-6565 Retrieved November 14, 2006, from Computer Database via Thomson E-mail:
M ADVISOR REVIEWS––COMPARATIVE REVIEW Update on Scopus and Web of Science Date of Review: December 6, 2006, using the databases available on December 4–5, 2006
Scopus Composite Score: ### 7/8 Reviewed by: David Goodman previously Associate Professor Web of Science Composite Score: ### 7/8 Palmer School of Library and Information Science Long Island University
his update discusses the status of Scopus from Elsevier and BACKGROUND Web of Science from Thomson as seen at the end of 2006. It is In our previous review, we stated of Scopus that “In our opinion, the T based on what actually is working, regardless of whether the underlying data is not of the degree of completeness that released prod- publisher considers it released or beta, because some features seem to ucts from major vendors usually posses” and in the update, we said be in both categories. It should be read in conjunction with our previ- “the publisher claimed to have filled in the missing data in the 1996+ ous review “Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus” in The portion,... [but we found] that Scopus had not...” Charleston Advisor (Vol. 6, Number 3, January 2005
Scopus Review Scores Composite: ### 7/8 The maximum number of stars in each category is 5.
Coverage: ### Post-1996 coverage is excellent, pre-1996 coverage still is grossly deficient.
Usability: #### 1/2 Excellent but with some features not obvious.
Pricing: ### Extremely expensive by normal database standards.
Contract: ##### Standard.
third world journals, especially those in languages other than English. At the beginning, there were a few significant differences in the way Both Scopus and WoS include monographs and symposia published the basic search functions worked. One remains: Scopus does auto- in series, but Scopus also covers many additional unnumbered sym- matic truncation, which cannot be turned off, even in the advanced posia. Most observable differences in items covered between the two search mode. The other difference is no longer present: The default are due to editorial material, supplements, and special issues: neither search operator for Scopus was AND, while for WoS it was “Exact service gets them all, but Scopus seems a little better. Phrase.” Those unaware of this found many more results from Scopus when testing such word pairs. WoS dealt with the problem by chang- Pre-1996 Content For the pre-1996 period, Scopus’ coverage ing its default operator to AND. remains erratic. Almost all journals with long publication histories have most of their content omitted: only 297 of the boasted 25 mil- Citation Analysis The features in the two databases are almost iden- lion articles were published before 1963. The journal list in Scopus tical in essence and very similar in appearance. Scopus introduced a now makes this easy to determine and clarifies coverage by indicat- tabular “Citation overview”; WoS has a remarkably similar “Citation ing which journals ceased publication, although it does not specifi- Report,” with some useful added graphic displays. Scopus has had from cally indicate the dates of cessations and title changes. We continue the beginning a “Refine Results” faceted search; WoS now has one to find no systematic pattern. As one of their representatives said ear- called just the same, but that offers a few additional useful choices, as lier “it is really two databases”; and we continue to deplore that the described by Susan Fingerman. The WoS report also shows the “h- publisher does not make this division clear at the onset, perhaps by index,” a number showing the relative citation importance of a paper having two check boxes: 1996+ and pre-1996 (incomplete). WoS cov- (unlike Impact Factors, which apply only to entire journals).1 ers material back to 1900, if one pays a good deal extra. There are sev- WoS, for some time, has had analytical capabilities for ranking records eral different journal lists (and several more at
Web of Science Review Scores Composite: ### 7/8 The maximum number of stars in each category is 5. Coverage: #### 1/2 Continued weakness with non-English-language journals. Useability: ### 1/2 Continued problems with usability. Price: ## 1/2 Extremely expensive by normal database standards, and backfiles have to be purchased separately. Contract: ##### Standard.
names unless you select author details; WoS more usefully shows them number of projects elsewhere also are working on assigning standard in the full record display. author numbers, INSANs.2) Both databases introduced author disambiguation systems, called Web Searching From the beginning, Scopus has had excellent Web “Author Finders,” designed to partially group together the articles of search capability, provided by Scirus, which has over 50 million rele- particular authors. At first, they worked rather differently, but by now, vant Web results from the over 250 million Web sites indexed. Scopus the basic systems work about the same. Unfortunately, they also are uses only the nonjournal results from repositories and the Web itself. similar in providing multiple pathways for finding authors, each of The Web results are shown in a separate tab, which can be either used which works differently. In Scopus, using the “Author Search” tab or or ignored; the results can be refined by content source and informa- the “Author” search field in the “Basic Search” tab and clicking on tion type. “Use author selection,” entering either initials or first names gets a list As an additional feature, Scopus is slowly introducing “Web Cites.” of all the possible authors in the database that might match, showing When one searches for cited references to an article, those items from general subject area (not of the article, but of the journal in which it the Web that cite it in their reference list appear in a separate panel. was published) and institutional affiliation, if given on the article. The At the beginning of December, this feature is effective for only a very articles are grouped in clusters by apparent author, and the user selects few university and dissertation repositories—and does not yet include the ones that look right: Somewhere between 50 and 90 percent will arXiv. (Scopus previously introduced a similar feature for be in a single cluster. In WoS, it works a little differently but usually “PatentCites.”) gives even poorer results. After entering the name with the initial(s), it gives a list of all the possibilities. The user then selects a broad sub- WoS has a companion product, Web Citation Index (WCI), with ject category (again not of the article, but of the journal in which it was 450,000 items from 59 repositories, but not the Web in general, begin- published) and, if necessary, the university, then uses the “Refine ning in 2004. (Both Scopus and WCI include all the major reposito- Results” function to limit by journal or narrower subject category. It ries.) WCI is presently being provided at very low cost or free as a remains possible to use the older technique of entering both the author’s combination product with WoS. It can be searched by title and abstract surname and the institution as search terms. word, full-text word, author, year, and repository. The full record dis- play includes the number of cited works, albeit only within WCI, but For both systems, the methods work fine for uncommon names. For it also provides a list of all works cited by the repository item. (Scirus common names, they work adequately for those people who have or any Web search engine could do this also but only by displaying the stayed in one place and published the largest number of papers. item itself.) Neither publisher is resting content with this. Scopus has assigned an There also is a “Cited Reference” search mode, with a single search author number to each apparent cluster found in its “Author Finder.” field including titles, years, journal names, and authors. There are two These author numbers are visible in the “Author Details” link and can indexes to it: a cited works index, (currently arranged by the first let- be searched directly in the “Advanced Search” mode. The publisher ter of the author’s first name but searchable by any word in the index) subsequently embarked on an program to further refine the clumping and a title word index. Though crude, these suffice for a limited num- algorithm to try to get the strays and groups collected. WoS began a ber of entries. By entering key words from a journal title and an arti- similar system, “Distinct Authors”, which aims at matching the correct cle author or title, it is possible to find items in the repositories that cite groups and assigning numbers. (One can only identify if an author has that particular article. This works but is much more complicated than been entered in this system by clicking on the author’s name in a full Scopus’ “WebCites,” although at the time of writing, it covers many record display; a banner will appear, but the number is not visible). more repositories, including arXiv. (Scirus or any Web search engine We have been unable to determine the rate of progress in either sys- can do the same for the entire Web or specified repositories, although tem. Both systems are hoping that authors will send in corrections. (A in a less specific way.) 18 Advisor Reviews / The Charleston Advisor / January 2007 www.charlestonco.com
When WoS and WCI are used together in “CrossSearch,” there are etary products, EndNote, ProCite, or Reference Manager. In addition, search fields for only topic (defined as title plus abstract plus key a special bibliographic database, a web form of EndNote, for the time words) and author. The results show in which of the two databases the is supplied free with WoS. It is not sold separately but is compatible item was found or both if there is a perfect match. with the individual version of that database. Integration with Other Databases WoS can be searched together Pricing and Contract Options Scopus is now sold without the with other Thomson databases, such as Biological Abstracts using its extremely long trial periods and very extended payments earlier used “CrossSearch” function. The results appear in a single sequence with for promotional purposes. Those who earlier paid token amounts are duplicates removed and are labeled to show the database(s) in which now faced with the question of whether they can afford the full price. they were found. Naturally, the special analytical features of WoS can- For most libraries, Scopus is a little less expensive than WoS. not be used, although the citation feature can be used on individual Web of Science is sold by the same complicated pattern as before, with records. Although Elsevier has suitable databases for cross searching, prices depending on number of students, years and sections chosen, such as Excerpta Medica, it does not presently offer the capability. The and consortium membership. At the time of writing, Thomson is pre- Scopus “Patent Results” tab offers a link to Lexis, which offers addi- pared to include free versions of EndNote and Web Citation Index as tional results beyond the basic ones included in Scopus. well as combination pricing with its other databases products. No Output Options As of the beginning of December, Scopus offers an library should assume these databases cannot be afforded: get trial, and RSS feed, while WoS offers only e-mail. Both products work with bib- quotations. liographic software. Scopus offers output in standard, nonproprietary Conclusions and Recommendations The feature sets are similar formats suitable for all current programs; its advertisements claim enough that no library should decide on the basis of the minor differ- BibTex, an Open Source format, but the option was not yet present. ences that exist. The truly important difference is, as it was from the There are special provisions for RefWorks, a very widely used per- first, that Scopus offers a wider selection of journals and an intelligent sonal bibliographic manager with a centralized database accessed interface, while WoS offers a much longer selection of years. The two through a Web client. (It must be purchased separately from CSA, are complementary, and a library that can afford both should buy both. together with a special module for Scopus interactivity.) WoS offers to save in nonproprietary formats or export directly to Thomson’s propri- For libraries that can afford only one, we continue to recommend that a research library that has more than the latest years of WoS should continue with it. For smaller libraries, we consider them equally desir- Contact Information able; whichever one is purchased will be much used. Scopus Elsevier Notes North or Central America: 1. J.E. Hirsch, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the P.O. Box 945 United States of America 102, no. 46 (November 15, 2005): New York, NY 10159-0945 16569–16572, available at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/102/46/16569, doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102. Phone: (888) 615-4500 or (212) 462-1978 from outside the 2. Barbara B. Tillett, Authority Control on the Web (2001), avail;able at U.S.A. and Canada