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.
D. Adam , The counting house , Nature415(6873) (2002) 726-9.
2.
H.M. Dess , Scopus, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 45(Winter) (2006). Available at: www.istl.org/06-winter/databases4.html (accessed 10 May 2007).
3.
Scopus , Scopus Info. Available at: www.info.scopus.com (accessed 10 May 2007).
4.
H.F. Deis and D. Goodman , Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus , The Charleston Advisor6(3) (2005). Available at: www.charlestonco.com/comp.cfm?id=43 (accessed 10 May 2007).
5.
H.F. Deis and D. Goodman , Update on Scopus , The Charleston Advisor7(3) (2006). Available at: www.charlestonco.com/comp.cfm?id=55 (accessed 10 May 2007).
6.
J. Gorraiz , Web of Science versus Scopus oder das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliotheken [Web of Science versus Scopus or the current dilemma of libraries] , Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare59(1) (2006) 25-30.
7.
P. Jacsó , As we may search: comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases , Current Science89(9) (2005) 1537-47. Available at: www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102005/1537.pdf (accessed 10 May 2007).
8.
C. LaGuardia , E-Views and reviews: Scopus vs Web of Science , Library Journal.com , 15 January (2005 ). Available at: www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA491154.html%22 (accessed 10 May 2007).
9.
E. Pipp , Inhaltlicher Vergleich von Web of Science und Scopus an Hand der erfassten Zeitschriften [Comparison of the contents of Scopus and Web of Science by means of journal coverage] , Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare59(1) (2006) 3-18.
10.
K. Schneider , Scopus - Web of Science: Versuch einer Bewertung aus pharmakognostischer Sicht [Scopus - Web of Science: attempt at an assessment from a pharmacognostic viewpoint] , Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare59(1) (2006) 21-24.
11.
B. Wildner , Web of Science - Scopus: Auf der Suche nach Zitierungen [Web of Science - Scopus: Looking for citations] , Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare59(1) ( 2006) 18-20.
12.
J. Bosman , I. van Mourik , M. Rasch , E. Sieverts and H. Verhoeff , Scopus reviewed and compared: the coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar (Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, Utrecht, 2006). Available at: http://igiturarchive.library.uu.nl/DARLIN/2006-1220-200432/Scopus%20doorgelicht%20&%20vergeleken%20-%20translated.pdf (accessed 10 May 2007).
13.
K. Bauer , and N. Bakkalbasi , An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment , D-Lib Magazine11(9) ( 2005). Available at: www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html (accessed 10 May 2007).
14.
P. Jacsó , Evaluation of citation enhanced scholarly databases , Journal of Information Processing & Management48(12) (2006) 763-74.
15.
R. Ball and D. Tunger , Science indicators revisited - Science Citation Index versus Scopus: a bibliometric comparison of both citation databases , Information Services & Use26(4) (2006) 293-301.
16.
R. Klavans and K.W. Boyack , Is there a convergent structure of science? A comparison of maps using the ISI and Scopus databases . In: D. Torres-Salinas and H.F. Moed (eds), Proceedings of ISSI 2007, Volume 1 (CSIC, Madrid, 2007) 437-48.
17.
E. Garfield , The impact factor , Current Contents (25) 20 June 1994, 3-7. Available at: http://scientific.thomson.com/free/essays/journalcitationreports/impactfactor/ (accessed 23 October 2007).
18.
C. Schloegl and J. Gorraiz , Document delivery as a source for bibliometric analyses: the case of Subito , Journal of Information Science32(3) (2006) 223-37.
19.
Subito , Dokumente aus Bibliotheken e.V (2007) (accessed 10 May 2007). 2008 version available at: www.subito-doc.de/
20.
W.G. Stock , Journal Citation Reports: Ein Impact Faktor für Bibliotheken, Verlage und Autoren? [An impact factor for libraries, publishers and authors?] , Password (5) (2001) 24-39.
21.
H. Moed , Citation analysis of scientific journals and journal impact measures , Current Science89(12) (2005) 1990-96.
22.
P. Jacsó , A deficiency in the algorithm for calculating the impact factor of scholarly journals: the journal impact factor , Cortex37(4) (2001) 590-94. Available at: www.jacso.info/PDFs/jacso-cortex-590-594.pdf (accessed 23 October 2007).
23.
P. Jacsó , The number game , Online Information Review24(2) (2000) 180-83. Available at: www.jacso.info/PDFs/jacso-numbergame.PDF (accessed 23 October 2007).
