Article Research| Volume 60, ISSUE 6, P391-400, November 2012

Download started.


Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: A case study of the h-index in nursing



      This study compares the articles cited in CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and Google Scholar and the h-index ratings provided by Scopus, WOS, and Google Scholar.


      The publications of 30 College of Nursing faculty at a large urban university were examined. Searches by author name were executed in Scopus, WOS, and POP (Publish or Perish, which searches Google Scholar), and the h-index for each author from each database was recorded. In addition, the citing articles of their published articles were imported into a bibliographic management program. This data was used to determine an aggregated h-index for each author.


      Scopus, WOS, and Google Scholar provided different h-index ratings for authors and each database found unique and duplicate citing references.


      More than one tool should be used to calculate the h-index for nursing faculty because one tool alone cannot be relied on to provide a thorough assessment of a researcher’s impact. If researchers are interested in a comprehensive h-index, they should aggregate the citing references located by WOS and Scopus. Because h-index rankings differ among databases, comparisons between researchers should be done only within a specified database.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Nursing Outlook
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Bakkalbasi N.
        • Bauer K.
        • Glover J.
        • Wang L.
        Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science.
        Biomed Digital Library. 2006; (Retrieved from)
        • Bar-Ilan J.
        Which h-index?: A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar.
        Scientometrics. 2008; 74: 257-371
        • Bornmann L.
        • Daniel H.D.
        The state of h index research. Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance?.
        EMBO Report. 2009; 10: 2-6
      1. The CINAHL Database. (2011). Retrieved from

        • Conn V.S.
        Scientific impact considered.
        Western Journal of Nursing Research. 2010; 32: 575-577
        • Falagas M.E.
        • Pitsouni E.I.
        • Malietzis G.A.
        • Pappas G.
        Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses.
        FASEB J. 2008; 22: 338-342
      2. Google Scholar. Help. Searching Google Scholar. (2012). Retrieved from

        • Hack T.F.
        • Crooks D.
        • Plohman J.
        • Kepron E.
        Research citation analysis of nursing academics in Canada: Identifying success indicators.
        Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2010; 66: 2542-2549
        • Harzing A.
        • van der Wai R.
        Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis.
        Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. 2008; 8: 61-73
      3. Harzing, A. W. (2007). Publish or Perish. Retrieved from htm

        • Hill B.
        Comparison of journal title coverage between CINAHL and Scopus.
        Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2009; 97: 313-314
        • Hirsch J.E.
        An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output.
        Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2005; 102: 16569-16572
        • Jacsó P.
        The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar.
        Online Information Review. 2008; 32: 437-452
        • Jacsó P.
        The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Scopus.
        Online Information Review. 2008; 32: 524-535
        • Jacsó P.
        The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Web of Science.
        Online Information Review. 2008; 32: 673-688
        • Jacsó P.
        Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts.
        Online Information Review. 2006; 30: 297-309
        • Journal Citation Reports®–Science Edition and Journal Citation Reports®–Social Sciences Edition Databases of the Institute for Scientific Information®, Inc., ISI
        Data are extracted from the Journal Citation Reports.
        USA, Copyright©, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania2010
      4. Kulkarni, A., Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302, 1092-1096.

        • Meho L.I.
        • Yang K.
        Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar.
        Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2007; 58: 2105-2125
        • Polit D.F.
        • Northam S.
        Impact factors in nursing journals.
        Nursing Outlook. 2011; 59: 18-28
      5. SCImago. (2012). SJR—SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Retrieved from

      6. Scopus –Title List. (2012). Retrieved from;

      7. Ulrichsweb/Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory.Serials Solutions. (2011). Retrieved from http://

      8. Scopus. (2012). FAQs. Retrieved from

        • Thompson D.R.
        • Watson R.
        H-indices and the performance of professors of nursing in the UK.
        Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2010; 19: 957-958
      9. The Thomson Reuters Journal Selection Process. (2012). Products and Services–Journal Selection Process. Retrieved from

      10. Thomson Reuters. (2012). Completing the research picture. Retrieved from

      11. US News & World Report (2011). Best Graduate Schools–Nursing 2011. Retrieved from

        • Vaughan L.
        • Shaw D.
        A new look at evidence of scholarly citations in citation indexes and from web sources.
        Scientometrics. 2008; 74: 317-330
      12. Web of Science. (2011). Products and Services–Web of Science. Retrieved from