A Criteria-based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science

Aksnes, Dag W.; Sivertsen, Gunnar

doi:10.2478/jdis-2019-0001

Cited by 217 publications

(157 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to do this, we carry out a systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines [48] During October 2019 we carried out an inquiry that began with the introduction of the keyword "nomophobia" in all possible search fields (title, abstract, keywords, main text, and so on) in both Scopus and the main collection of the Web of Science (WOS, BCI, BIOSIS, CCC, DIIDW, KJD, MEDLINE, RSCI, SCIELO), and contemplating all possible outcomes in the present day. These databases contain most of the current research references and are, in turn, the most consulted by researchers and experts from different areas of knowledge [49]. No limits were given for geographic area, language, year of publication, or method used.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nomophobia: An Individual’s Growing Fear of Being without a Smartphone—A Systematic Literature Review

Rodríguez-García

Moreno-Guerrero

Belmonte

2020

IJERPH

183

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review examines the current literature focused on nomophobia (objectives, methodological design, main variables, sample details, and measurement methods) in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. To this end, we conducted a systematic literature review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. The initial sample consisted of 142 articles, of which 42 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail. The findings show that the current research is in an exploratory phase, with a greater predominance of descriptive, nonexperimental, and cross-sectional studies that explore the prevalence of nomophobia mainly in adolescents and university students. The most widely used measurement instrument is the Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP-Q) proposed by Yildrim and Correia. In addition, the research suggests that nomophobia negatively affects personality, self-esteem, anxiety, stress, academic performance, and other physical and mental health problems. We are therefore faced with a health problem, which negatively affects a person, causing psychological problems and physical and behavioral changes.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nomophobia: An Individual’s Growing Fear of Being without a Smartphone—A Systematic Literature Review

Rodríguez-García

Moreno-Guerrero

Belmonte

2020

IJERPH

183

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another problem relates to the limited coverage of the bibliographic databases typically applied in such studies (e.g. Web of Science (WoS) or Scopus), where books, books chapters, and articles in national journals are not indexed by the databases to the same extent as articles in international journals (Aksnes and Sivertsen 2019). This problem affects the humanities and the social sciences in particular.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender gaps in international research collaboration: a bibliometric approach

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses gender differences in international research collaboration measured through international co-authorship. The study is based on a dataset consisting of 5600 Norwegian researchers and their publication output during a 3-year period (44,000 publications). Two different indicators are calculated. First, the share of researchers that have been involved in international collaboration as measured by co-authorship, and second, the share of their publications with international co-authorship. The study shows that the field of research is by far the most important factor influencing the propensity to collaborate internationally. There are large differences from humanities on the one hand, where international collaboration in terms of co-authorship is less common, to the natural sciences on the other, where such collaboration is very frequent. On an overall level, we find distinct gender differences in international research collaboration in Norway in the favour of men. However, men and women are not equally distributed across fields and there are relatively more female researchers in fields where the international collaboration rates generally are lower. When the data are analysed by scientific field, academic position, and publication productivity of the researchers, the gender differences in the propensity to collaborate with colleagues in other countries are minor only, and not statistically significant. Concerning gender inequality in science, the main challenge seems to be the lower productivity level of female researchers, which obviously hinders their academic career development. Differences in international collaboration are unlikely to be an important factor in this respect, at least not in the Norwegian research context analysed in this study.

show abstract

“…As said above, this study is based on WoS data. WoS has a very good coverage of scientific literature within the natural sciences and medicine, but the coverage of technology, the social sciences and humanities has more limitations (Aksnes & Sivertsen, 2019). In particular, this issue relates to the lack of coverage of national journals, non-English literature and books.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%