Web of Science and Scopus language coverage

The evaluation of research outputs in the form of journal articles is important to help with monitoring performance and to allocate funds. Elsevier’s Scopus and Clarivate’s Web of Science (WoS) are the two main sources for identifying outputs. For non-English-speaking countries, it is especially important that most of the scientific activity evaluated is represented in the bibliometric database used. All documents published in Scopus and WoS during 2018 (6,094,079 documents) were therefore analysed and compared for their languages and research areas. The most comprehensive source for each language and research area were identified and some coverage problems have been found

Trends in Russian research output indexed in Scopus and Web of Science

Trends are analysed in the annual number of documents published by Russian institutions and indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, giving special attention to the time period starting in the year 2013 in which the Project 5-100 was launched by the Russian Government. Numbers are broken down by document type, publication language, type of source, research discipline, country and source. It is concluded that Russian publication counts strongly depend upon the database used, and upon changes in database coverage, and that one should be cautious when using indicators derived from WoS, and especially from Scopus, as tools in the measurement of research performance and international orientation of the Russian science system.Comment: Author copy of a manuscript accepted for publication in the journal Scientometrics, May 201

The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus : a comparative analysis

Bibliometric methods are used in multiple fields for a variety of purposes, namely for research evaluation. Most bibliometric analyses have in common their data sources: Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science (WoS) and Elsevier’s Scopus. The objective of this research is to describe the journal coverage of those two databases and to assess whether some field, publishing country and language are over or underrepresented. To do this we compared the coverage of active scholarly journals in WoS (13,605 journals) and Scopus (20,346 journals) with Ulrich’s extensive periodical directory (63,013 journals). Results indicate that the use of either WoS or Scopus for research evaluation may introduce biases that favor Natural Sciences and Engineering as well as Biomedical Research to the detriment of Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities. Similarly, English-language journals are overrepresented to the detriment of other languages. While both databases share these biases, their coverage differs substantially. As a consequence, the results of bibliometric analyses may vary depending on the database used. These results imply that in the context of comparative research evaluation, WoS and Scopus should be used with caution, especially when comparing different fields, institutions, countries or languages. The bibliometric community should continue its efforts to develop methods and indicators that include scientific output that are not covered in WoS or Scopus, such as field-specific and national citation indexes

Measuring the vitality and effectiveness within social sciences and humanities research. an attempt in Italian LIS studies

This study constitutes the beginning of a PhD research in Library and information science at Sapienza University of Rome, aimed at investigating the level of internationalisation, vitality and effectivenessof Italian Library and information studies. The paper describes the methodology of search in international citational database, Web of science and Scopus, and in Google scholar for any scholarly work published by Italian LIS tenured researchers and university professors. The results in WoS and Scopus are illustrated and compared with a first collection of data within Italian similar field of Social sciences and humanities (SSH). The reliability of the data collected in citation database within the areas of Social sciences and humanities and their significance are limited; also the comparison with Italian historical and paleographic fields seems to confirms that a substantial impact of SSH non-Anglophone scientific production within citational database is influenced by a number of factors (number of indexed core journals, language of publication, level of coverage of journals, etc.). On the other hand, Google scholar could be a valuable tool for humanistic fields, but it is necessary to deal with the comple xity of the analysis and the problems of homonyms. Therefore, these first research results made it clear that, in order to investigate the presence and impact of Italian LIS studies, a correct use and organization of quantitative data is essential

Vaccination Coverage among Prisoners: A Systematic Review

Prison inmates are highly susceptible for several infectious diseases, including vaccine-preventable diseases. We conducted a systematic international literature review on vaccination coverage against hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis A virus (HAV), combined HAV/HBV, tetanus-diphtheria, influenza, pneumococcal, and combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) in prison inmates, according to the PRISMA guidelines. The electronic databases were used Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cinhal. No language or time limit were applied to the search. We defined vaccination coverage as the proportion of vaccinated prisoners. There were no limitations in the search strategy regarding time period or language. Of 1079 identified studies, 28 studies were included in the review. In total, 21 reported on HBV vaccine coverage (range between 16–82%); three on HAV (range between 91–96%); two studies on combined HAV/HBV (77% in the second dose and 58% in the third); three studies on influenza vaccine (range between 36–46%), one of pneumococcal vaccine coverage (12%), and one on MMR coverage (74%). We found that data on vaccination coverage in prison inmates are scarce, heterogeneous, and do not include all relevant vaccines for this group. Current published literature indicate that prison inmates are under-immunized, particularly against HBV, influenza, MMR, and pneumococci. Strengthen immunization programs specifically for this population at risk and improvement of data record systems may contribute to better health care in prisoners

A review of the literature on citation impact indicators

Citation impact indicators nowadays play an important role in research evaluation, and consequently these indicators have received a lot of attention in the bibliometric and scientometric literature. This paper provides an in-depth review of the literature on citation impact indicators. First, an overview is given of the literature on bibliographic databases that can be used to calculate citation impact indicators (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar). Next, selected topics in the literature on citation impact indicators are reviewed in detail. The first topic is the selection of publications and citations to be included in the calculation of citation impact indicators. The second topic is the normalization of citation impact indicators, in particular normalization for field differences. Counting methods for dealing with co-authored publications are the third topic, and citation impact indicators for journals are the last topic. The paper concludes by offering some recommendations for future research