Scopus: Evaluation Information for UC Faculty, Staff and Students
The University of California Libraries are evaluating Scopus a large and expensive interdisciplinary abstract and citation database of research literature and selected web sites developed by the publisher Elsevier. The arrangement is part of the journals license for ScienceDirect negotiated by the California Digital Library on behalf of the ten campuses. The Scopus database is available for evaluation until December 31st, 2010.
Scopus currently indexes, selectively abstracts and provides citation analysis since 1996 for approximately 18,000 + peer-reviewed journals from more than 4,000 publishers as well as open access journals, published sets of conference proceedings, trade publications and selected web pages. It provides searching tools that allow users to see an overview of desired search results and refine them to the most relevant hits. It also allows users to create alerts of new citations and provides tools designed to support research collaboration and assess journal quality. Citations in Scopus are linked to available full-text articles on each campus via UC eLinks. Although most comprehensive in the sciences, Scopus is currently expanding its coverage of the social sciences and humanities literature.
During the Scopus evaluation period members of the UC community are invited to consider its coverage and functionalities in comparison with similar databases. A UC Libraries’ Scopus Task Force is leading a formal evaluation of Scopus (Scopus Project Timeline, Task Force Charge). The Task Force will work with the UC community to determine if the qualities and capabilities of Scopus are of interest and strategic value to UC, including the Libraries, Offices of Research, researchers, faculty and graduate students. Examples of value may include:
- For library users generally, as a primary indexing and citation database for research and scholarship in a broad range of disciplines.
- For faculty and researchers, as a tool to support research collaboration and related activities.
- For Offices of Research, as a tool to support research evaluation and assessment.
- For students as a tool to select advanced graduate programs and faculty who excel in their areas of interest.
The Task Force members are: Myra Appel (Davis), Janet Carter (Los Angeles), Rob Melton (San Diego), Barbara Schader (Riverside), Jeff Williams (San Diego), Ivy Anderson (CDL), and Jacqueline Wilson (CDL, Chair).
Scopus Literature Review
The list of research publications below is selective and it is organized by date.
- Peter Jasco. (2009) Google Scholar’s Ghost Authors, Lost Authors, and Other Problems. New!
- Reference Reviews: Peter's Digital Reference Shelf ----Web of Science July 2009. by Peter Jacso. New!
- Salisbury, Lutishoor. (2009) Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Review of Content and Searching Capabilities. The Charleston Advisor,11:1, 5-18. New!
- Reference Reviews: Peter's Digital Reference Shelf ----Scopus June 2009. by Peter Jacso. New!
- Éric Archambault, David Campbell, Yves Gingras, Vincent Larivière (2009) Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60(7). New!
- Lopez-Illescas, C., Moya-Anegon, F., & Moed, H.F. (2009). Comparing bibliometric country-by-country rankings derived from the Web of Science and Scopus: The effect of poorly cited journals in oncology. Journal of Information Science , 35, 244-256. New!
- Levine-Clark, Michael and Gil, Esther L.(2009) A Comparative Citation Analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship,14:1,32 — 46 [PDF].
- Lopez-Illescas, C., Moya-Anegon, F., & Moed, H.F. (2008). Coverage and citation impact of oncological journals in the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics , 2, 304-316. New!
- Meho, L.I., & Rogers, Y. (2008). Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 59, 1711-1726. New!
- Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H.D. (2008). Data sources for performing citation analysis: An overview. Journal of Documentation , 64, 193-210. New!
- The University of British Columbia's Health Library has a recent (Nov.2008) comparison of Scopus, WoS and Google Scholar at its Wiki.
- A fairly recent (Nov. 08) summary of Collexis, comparing it briefly to Scopus & ISI, is available from Outsell's Insights.
- Citation Statistics. A report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS).
- Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E I., Malietzis, G. A., and Pappas, G. Comparison of Pub Med, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 22, 338–342 (2008).
- Jacsó, Péter (2008) The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Scopus. Online Information Review 32(4).
- Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences' literature. Journal of Informetrics , 1, 161-169. New!
- Judit Bar-Ilan (2007). Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2).
- Bosman, J., van Mourik, I., Rasch, M., Sieverts, E., & Verhoeff, H. (2006). Scopus reviewed and compared. Utrecht, Netherlands: Universiteitsbibliotheek. New!
- Meho, L.I., & Yang, K. (2006). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 58, 2105-2125. New!
- Burnham J. F. (2006), Scopus database: A review. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(1).
- Lokman I Meho, Kiduk Yang (2006). A New Era in Citation and Bibliometric Analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.
- Nisa Bakkalbasi, Kathleen Bauer, Janis Glover and Lei Wang. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries 2006, 3:7.
- Ball, Rafael; Tunger, Dirk (2006) Science Indicators Revisited – Science Citation Index versus SCOPUS: A Bibliometric Comparison of Both Citation Databases. Information Services & Use 26(2006).
- Belew, R.K. (2005). Scientific impact quantity and quality: Analysis of two sources of bibliographic data. Retrieved March 4, 2009, from http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.IR/0504036. New!
- Jacso, P. (2005a), As we may search — Comparison of major features of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9): 1537–1547.
- Moed, H.F. (2002). The impact-factors debate: The ISI's uses and limits. Nature , 415, 731-732. New!
- van Leeuwen, T.N., Moed, H.F., Tijssen, R.J.W., Visser, M.S., & van Raan, A.F.J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics , 51, 335-346. New!
- Moed, H.F. (1996). Differences in the construction of SCI-based bibliometric indicators among various producers: A first overview. Scientometrics , 35, 177-191. New!
Learn more about Scopus on Elsevier websites
- Scopus Overview
- Scopus Brochure
- Scopus Online Training Options
- Elsevier Scopus Newsletter
- Set Up Scopus: Library Integration
- Set Up Scopus: Scopus Tools
- Scopus TopCited Articles
| Campus Scopus Liaisons | ||
|---|---|---|
| Please contact your local campus rollout liaison or Jacqueline Wilson Scopus Task Force Chair for more information | ||
| Marcus Banks | UC San Francisco |  |
| John Sisson | UC Irvine | |
| Janet Carter | UC Los Angeles | |
| Beth Weil | UC Berkeley | |
| Andrea Duda | UC Santa Barbara | |
| Myra Appel | UC Davis | |
| Susan Mikkelsen | UC Merced | |
| Jeff Williams | UC San Diego | |
| Michele Potter | UC Riverside | |
| Kerry Scott | UC Santa Cruz | |
