Reference health
The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis
28/28 checkable references clean · checked 2026-08-03
Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.
5 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.
The 28 checked references that resolve
resolves10.7553/77-2-58
Comparing Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar from an Environmental Sciences perspective
resolves10.2478/jdis-2019-0001
A Criteria-based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science
resolves10.1162/qss_a_00019
Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies
resolves10.1162/qss_a_00018
Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity
resolves10.5539/ass.v9n5p18
A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases
resolves10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2
The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study
resolves10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses
resolves10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y
Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science?
resolves10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison
resolves10.1162/qss_a_00031
Comparison of bibliographic data sources: Implications for the robustness of university rankings
resolves10.1177/0165551508098603
Comparing bibliometric country-by-country rankings derived from the Web of Science and Scopus: the effect of poorly cited journals in oncology
resolves10.1016/j.joi.2008.08.001
Coverage and citation impact of oncological journals in the Web of Science and Scopus
resolves10.1007/s11192-018-2820-9
Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a multidisciplinary comparison
resolves10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories
resolves10.1007/s11192-010-0270-0
Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management
resolves10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis
resolves10.3233/JIFS-179906
Revisiting subject classification in academic databases: A comparison of the classification accuracy of Web of Science, Scopus & Dimensions
resolves10.1007/s11192-008-2113-9
Ranking of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases: Web of Science versus Scopus
resolves10.1002/meet.14504301185
Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science
The 5 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedAlRyalat, S. A. S., Malkawi, L. W., & Momani, S. M. (2019). Comparing bibliometric analysis using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 152, e58494.
no DOI — not checkedBode, C., Herzog, C., Hook D. & McGrath, R. (2019). A guide to dimensions data approach. Retrieved from https://www.dimensions.ai/resources/a-guide-to-the-dimensions-data-approach/ on May 15th 2020.
no DOI — not checkedMartin-Martin, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., Lopez-Cozar, E.D. (2020). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and Open Citations’COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Retrieved from arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14329 on May 15th 2020.
no DOI — not checkedVisser, M. S., van Eck, N. J. & Waltman, L. (2019). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions and Crossref. In proceedings of 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, pp. 2358–2369.
no DOI — not checkedVisser, M. S., van Eck, N. J. & Waltman, L. (2020). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10732 on May 25th 2020.
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings,
or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-08-03 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Embed this badge
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.
<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5)