A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus

In recent years, the Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus databases have become primary sources for conducting studies that evaluate scientific investigations. Such studies require that duplicate records be excluded to avoid errors of overrepresentation. In this line, we identify duplicate records in Scopus and examine their origins. Identifying journals with duplicate records in Scopus, selecting and downloading bibliographic journal records, and identifying and analyzing the duplicate records is the methodology adopted. Duplicate records are found when articles published in a journal are incorrectly mapped by Scopus to this journal and to a different journal from the same publisher and when there are journal title changes, orthographic differences in the presentation of a journal name, and journal name variants. In these last three cases, one bibliographic record of each duplicate is mapped to Medline coverage of Scopus. Consequently, the identified duplicates and the significant differences in the number of citations received in duplicate articles may influence bibliometric studies. Thus, there is a need for rigorous quality control guidelines to govern database managers and editors to prevent the creation of duplicates.

[1]  Fiorenzo Franceschini,et al.  Errors in DOI indexing by bibliometric databases , 2014, Scientometrics.

[2]  A. Kulkarni,et al.  Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. , 2009, JAMA.

[3]  Juan Gorraiz,et al.  A bibliometric analysis of pharmacology and pharmacy journals: Scopus versus Web of Science , 2008, J. Inf. Sci..

[4]  Éric Archambault,et al.  Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus , 2009 .

[5]  Elizabeth S. Vieira,et al.  A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university , 2009, Scientometrics.

[6]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar , 2008, Scientometrics.

[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 , 2005 .

[8]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the Social Sciences? , 2012, Scientometrics.

[9]  Gordana Budimir,et al.  Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia , 2013, Scientometrics.

[10]  Masood Fooladi,et al.  A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases , 2013, ArXiv.

[11]  Miguel A. García-Pérez,et al.  Strange attractors in the Web of Science database , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[12]  Lars Iselid,et al.  Web of Science and Scopus: a journal title overlap study , 2008, Online Inf. Rev..

[13]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Coverage and citation impact of oncological journals in the Web of Science and Scopus , 2008, J. Informetrics.

[14]  Lokman I. Meho,et al.  Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: A tale of two citation databases—Scopus and Web of Science , 2009 .

[15]  Matthew E Falagas,et al.  Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses , 2007, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[16]  Svetla Baykoucheva,et al.  Selecting a Database for Drug Literature Retrieval: A Comparison of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science , 2010 .

[17]  Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent,et al.  Ciertas ventajas de scopus sobre web of science en un análisis bibliométrico sobre tabaquismo , 2013 .

[18]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  Frances Boyle,et al.  Scopus™: The Product and Its Development , 2006 .

[20]  Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras,et al.  Ranking of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases: Web of Science versus Scopus , 2009, Scientometrics.