Skip to main content
Banner Image

Locating Who Cited Your Work: Google Scholar vs Web of Science

Find out who has cited a particular work with this collection of resources.

Throw-Down : Google Scholar vs Web of Science

The two most commonly used sources for citation analysis are Google Scholar and Web of Science.  Look at the following break-down to help make your choice.

 

Google Scholar

Web of Science

 Subject Focus 

 Medical, Scientific, Technical, Business, Social Sciences, Arts & Humanities

Science, Technology, Social Sciences, Arts & Humanities

Includes

Date Range :whatever is available on free web

Selections from PubMed, IEEE, American Institute of Physics, proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nature.com, American Medical Association and other medicine journals, Ingenta, SpringerLink,Wiley Interscience, Cambridge journals, Taylor and Francis, Sage Publications, Blackwell-Synergy, OCLC First Search and others

Open access journals and pre-prints

Online dissertations and theses

Book information

Conference papers

Web of Science Core Collection (Science & Social Sciences citation indexes, 1900-present; Arts & Humanities, 1975-present; Conference Proceedings Citation Index, 1990-present; Book Citation Index, 1990-present; Current Chemical Reactions, Index Chemicus); BIOSIS Citation Index; BIOSIS Previews, 1926-present; Current Contents Connect; Data Citation Index; Derwent Innovations Index; MEDLINE; SciELO Citation Index; Zoological Record. Journal Citation Reports and Essential Science Indicators are also available

Journals Indexed

Unknown

Over 10,000

Updating

Monthly

Weekly

Pros

Provides a more comprehensive picture of scholarly impact as it indexes non-traditional sources not covered by WOS and Scopus

Includes peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, abstracts, and articles from academic publishers, professional societies, preprint repositories, universities, and other scholarly organizations

Better coverage of newer materials than both WOS and Scopus

International and multi-lingual coverage

Deeper back-files especially for Science Journals

While controversial, its journal citation reports, impact factors, and h-index are most widely used

Offers citation mapping for visual presentation

Does not include technical reports, theses and dissertations, conference proceedings, and books

Cons

Limited search features

Inflated citation counts due to inclusion of non-scholarly sources such as promotional pages, table of contents pages, course readings lists etc.

Weeding irrelevant hits is time consuming

Difficult to export citations

No way to determine what sources, and time spans are covered.

Limited to what is available on the Web

Can lead to low citation counts due to errors in citations provided by authors, and different citation styles used by journals leading to poor indexing

More difficult to use

Coverage in the sciences is more through then in the arts, humanities, and social sciences.

Information adapted from the guides available from the University of Michigan Library and the University of Connecticut Library.

5729 Fogler Library · University of Maine · Orono, ME 04469-5729 ; (207) 581-1673

Chat is offline. Contact the library.