Web of Science vs. Scopus: Which is better? (Part 2)

[tweetmeme source=”Intellogist” only_single=false]

As a student, I enjoy the extreme privilege of being able to access almost any information resources I need for research purposes, thanks to the extensive university library network.  But for those of us in the commercial search world, things aren’t so easy.  Comparing major search products is essential when search resources are limited (which is always!). Last time in this series we examined the number of titles in Web of Science  vs. Scopus, and the overlap between the two.  In this post we’ll discover some other points of comparison in their collection scope and coverage.

Continue reading

Web of Science vs. Scopus: Which is better? (Part 1)

[tweetmeme source=”Intellogist” only_single=false]

At Intellogist, we’ve spent a long time comparing the coverage information for various patent search systems. This is harder to do than it sounds. What patenting authorities are covered? What document types are covered for each collection (e.g. patents, applications, utility models)? What are the earliest years of coverage? Do the documents exist as individual database records, or are they aggregated into patent families? Are machine translations keyword-searchable? Are human translations available? In the Intellogist Quick Comparison tool, we attempted to boil these questions down to their simplest forms. However, when it comes to coverage comparisons for non-patent literature, no such comparison is possible.  So how can these products be compared?  In this new series I’ll be taking a look at some attributes of two major academic literature collections, Web of Science and Scopus.

Continue reading