ISI AND SCOPUS INFORMATION GUIDE

There is not much difference except the time frame put into evaluation. Clarivate analytics (ISI) uses the
published articles for the last two years, while Scopus uses a 3 year window. Scopus calls it metrics as
citescore while ISI calls it Impact Factor. But it must be kept in mind that Scopus is a bigger repository and
indexing system in terms of number of journals. And citescore has started becoming an important tool for
journal evaluation since the end of 2016 replacing IF in some cases. However, both the systems only work
for marketization of knowledge through metrics comparison.

Scopus and ISI (more specifically the ISI Web of Knowledge) are two bibliographic
databases operated by different companies - Elsevier and Clarivate Analytics
(formerly part of Thomson Reuters).

Many journals are featured in both databases, so there is no intrinsic difference in

the journals, aside from their being featured in one database or the other or both.

Scopus has a broader journal coverage, meaning that most “ISI journals” are also
“Scopus journals” but traditionally ISI has a more elitist approach to including
journals. The two systems have slightly different criteria and slightly different
functionality, but given that most ISI journals are also Scopus journals, there is no
inherent difference between journals carrying one label or the other.

16.2.1 Scopus versus ISI

The difference in citation records between ISI versus Scopus varies hugely by discipline. For the academics
working in the Sciences, Scopus generally finds fewer citations than ISI, with the exception of our Computer
Scientist. For the academics working in the Social Sciences and Humanities Scopus generally finds more
citations than ISI, with the exception of the Cinema Studies academic.

Sciences
As is readily apparent from Figure 1, the pattern of reduced citation scores for the Scientists is most
pronounced for the Pharmacologist who sees his citations reduced by more than 50%. His most cited article
has 919 citations in ISI, but only 248 in Scopus. The simple reason for this is that Scopus only includes
citations from 1996 onwards. In fact, Scopus and ISI provide a virtually identical number of citations for this
article from 1996 onwards. As this particular academic has been publishing for more than 40 years, his
citation record in Scopus is very incomplete.
The Cell Biologist, Mathematician and Physicist also experience drops of around 25%, even though they
have only been publishing for around 25 years. Again, this is caused by the fact that Scopus does not
include citations before 1996 and all of these academics published some articles before this date.
Comparison of individual articles published after 1995 shows virtually identical citation records in ISI and
Scopus. If anything, Scopus tends to show a marginally higher number of citations for these articles.
Figure 1: Number of citations for ISI and Scopus General Search: Science disciplines
In contrast, our Computer Scientist sees his citations increase by 43% in Scopus. There are several reasons
for this. First, although this academic has been publishing for 31 years, many of his most cited articles were
published after 1995 and hence Scopus restricted data coverage is not a problem. Second, the Computer
Scientists benefits from the broader data coverage of Scopus in his field. Whilst ISI lists only 62 articles for
him, Scopus lists around 100 articles. This difference did not occur for the other academics working in the
Sciences.

Social Sciences and Humanities

For four of our academics working in the Social Sciences and Humanities (Business, Education and
Linguistics), Scopus finds more citations than ISI. As shown in Figure 2, this pattern is pronounced for the
Business academic who sees her citations increase by 77%. As she only started publishing in 1995, the lack
of citation coverage before 1996 is not a problem. Moreover, Scopus lists an additional 10 articles for her in
journals that are not ISI-listed, but are included in the Scopus database. This includes her most highly cited
article. In addition, because Scopus has a wider journal coverage in Business than ISI, citations for all her
articles tend to be at least 10%, but sometimes 50% higher than citations in ISI.
A similar pattern is found for the academic working in Education. He even sees his citations increase by
90%, largely because Scopus lists more of the journals he has published in, but also because Scopus
citations to articles listed in both databases are 20-100% higher than ISI citations. The Linguist and the
Political Scientist only show a modest increase by 18-20% as for them better journal coverage in Scopus is
counterbalanced by a reduction in pre-1996 citations. However, for the journal articles that are listed in
both sources, Scopus generally provides 20-80% more citations than ISI. Hence journal coverage in four of
the Social Sciences and Humanities fields seems much broader in Scopus.
Figure 2: Citations for ISI and Scopus General Search: Social Science and Humanities disciplines

The Cinema Studies academic is worst off when using the Scopus database as nearly all of her journal
publications date from before 1996, and the journals she has published in do not have pre-1996 coverage
in Scopus. However, the only article by this academic that is included in Scopus has more citations than in
ISI.

Conclusion
Comparing ISI and Scopus as a source for citations provides mixed results. In general, Scopus provides a
higher citation count than ISI, both in the Sciences and in the Social Sciences and Humanities. In the
Sciences, this increase in only marginal (except for Computer Science), whilst in the Social Sciences and
Humanities, this increase is substantial.
Scopus appears to have a much broader journal coverage for the Social Sciences and Humanities than ISI
and hence provides a fairer comparison. Whilst in ISI academics working in the Sciences have on average
17.5 times as many citations as the academics working in the Social Sciences and Humanities, in Scopus this
difference is reduced to 7.5 times.
However, for the time being Scopus is hindered by its lack of coverage before 1996. This means that for
most established academics in the Sciences, Scopus will lead to lower lifetime citation counts than ISI. In the
Social Sciences and Humanities, a substantially increased citation count is likely for academics who have
published the majority of their highly cited work after 1996.