[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales force literature from 1912 to 2019

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Marketing Analytics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To conduct a bibliometric analysis, several researchers retrieve publications from Scopus or/and Web of Science (WOS) databases. When these scholars consider both Scopus and WOS databases, they mostly make two bibliometric analysis: one from Scopus database and the other from WOS database. A few researchers merge the two databases to conduct a single analysis, but they do not specify how they did it. This paper aims to advance the bibliometric analysis by addressing two points. First, this research claims that making a bibliometric analysis that takes information from Scopus or/and separately from WOS cannot give a broader view of knowledge and tendencies in a field. To prove this claim, we retrieve papers from Scopus and WOS databases to make a bibliometric analysis of sales force literature that covers from 1912 to 2019. Results show that there are many disparities between WOS and merged database, and between this latter and WOS database regarding bibliometric analyses, especially among primary productive authors, the most influential papers, and keyword occurrences. Second, this research proposes a four-step procedure that merges these two databases to allow more reliable bibliometric analyses. This procedure was explicitly shown by using the bibliometric analysis of sales force literature during 1912–2019.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It: the promotion’s plan.

References

  • Archambault, E., D. Campbell, Y. Gingras, and V. Larivière. 2009. Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (7): 1320–1326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, E., É. Vignola-Gagne, G. Côté, V. Larivère, and Y. Gingras. 2006. Benchmarking scientific outputs in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics 68 (3): 329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aria, M., and C. Cuccurullo. 2017. Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics 11 (4): 959–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartol, T., and M. Mackiewicz-Talarczyk. 2015. Bibliometric analysis of publishing trends in fiber crops in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Journal of Natural Fibers 12 (6): 531–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beard, F. 2015. Forgotten classics: The business of advertising, by Earnest Elmo Calkins (1915). Journal of Historical Research in Marketing 7 (4): 573–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, A.J., and S.E. Grant. 1991. An analysis of leading contributors to the sales force research literature, 1980 through 1990. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 11 (3): 47–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, A.J., and S.E. Grant. 1994. Analyzing the content of marketing journals to assess trends in sales force research: 1980–1992. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 14 (3): 57–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calkins, E.E. 1915. The business of advertising. New York, NY: D. Appleton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castillo-Vergara, M., A. Alvarez-Marin, and D. Placencio-Hidalgo. 2018. A bibliometric analysis of creativity in the field of business economics. J. Bus. Res. 85: 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chirici, G. 2012. Assessing the scientific productivity of Italian forest researchers using the Web of Science, SCOPUS and SCIMAGO databases. IForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry 5 (3): 101–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellegaard, O., and J.A. Wallin. 2015. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertz, M., and A. Leblanc-Proulx. 2019. Review of a proposed methodology for bibliometric and visualization analyses for organizations: application to the collaboration economy. Journal of Marketing Analytics 7: 84–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escalona, M.I., P. Lagar, and A. Pulgarín. 2010. Web of Science vs. Scopus: un estudio cuantitativo en Ingeniería Química. Anales de Documentación 13: 159–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabregat-Aibar, L., M. Barberà-Mariné, G. Terceño, and A. Laia Pié. 2019. Bibliometric and visualization analysis of socially responsible funds. Sustainability 11: 2526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fingerman, S. 2006. Web of Science and Scopus: Current features and capabilities. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 48: 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. 1971. The mystery of the transposed journal lists: Wherein Bradford’s law of scattering is generalized according to Garfield’s law of concentration. Current Contents 1: 222–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrigos-Simon, F., Y. Narangajavana-Kaosiri, and I. Lengua-Lengua. 2018. Tourism and sustainability: A bibliometric and visualization analysis. Sustainability 10: 1976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavel, Y., and L. Iselid. 2008. Web of Science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Information Review 32 (1): 8–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D., and L. Deis. 2007. Update on scopus and web of science. The Charleston Advisor 7 (3): 15–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, C.M. 2011. Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism. Tour. Manag 32: 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.-W., and S. Alakangas. 2016. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics 106 (2): 787–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, D., and S. Yang. 2008. Social network analysis, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, T.W., E.B. Pullins, and L.B. Comer. 2001. The top ten sales articles of the 20th century. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 21 (3): 217–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., and E. Lipitakis. 2010. Counting the citations; a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics 85 (2): 613–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D.G. Altman. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 151: 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mongeon, P., and A. Paul-Hus. 2016. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106 (1): 213–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muhuri, P.K., A.K. Shukla, and A. Abraham. 2019. Industry 4.0: A bibliometric analysis and detailed overview. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 78: 218–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, M., and C. Oppenheim. 2007. Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. Journal of Informetrics 1 (1): 161–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plouffe, C.R., B.C. Williams, and T. Wachner. 2008. Navigating difficult waters: publishing trends and scholarship in sales research. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 28 (1): 79–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, A. 1969. Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation 254: 348–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinelt, G. 1991. Tsplib: A traveling salesman problem library. ORSA, Journal on Computing 3 (4): 376–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, K.A., W.C. Moncrief, and G.W. Marshall. 2010. Tracking and updating academic research in selling and sales management: A decade later. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 30 (3): 253–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrock, W.A., W. Zhao, D.E. Hughes, and K.A. Richards. 2016. JPSSM since the beginning: intellectual cornerstones, knowledge structure, and thematic developments. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 36 (4): 321–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, A.F. 1911. The art of selling. Libertyville, IL: The Sheldon University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strozzia, F., C. Colicchia, A. Creazza, and C. Noè. 2017. Literature review on the ‘Smart Factory’ concept using bibliometric tools. International Journal of Production Research 55 (22): 6572–6591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, A.D., M. Del Río Rama, and J.Á. García. 2017. Bibliometric analysis of publications on wine tourism in the databases Scopus and WoS. European Research on Management and Business Economics 231: 8–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, A.B. 2015. A Practical comparison of Scopus and Web of Science core collection https://ubir.buffalo.edu/xmlui/handle/10477/38568

  • Wang, Q., and L. Waltman. 2016. Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics 10 (2): 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B.C., and C.R. Plouffe. 2007. Assessing the evolution of sales knowledge: A 20-year content analysis. Industrial Marketing Management 36 (4): 408–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witkowski, T.H. 2012. Marketing education and acculturation in the early twentieth century. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing 4 (1): 97–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zyoud, S.H., W.S. Waring, S.W. Al-Jabi, and W.M. Sweileh. 2017. Global cocaine intoxication research trends during 1975–2015: A bibliometric analysis of Web of Science publications. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 12 (6): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Management Department, University of Quebec at Rimouski, 1595 Boulevard Alphonse-Desjardins, Lévis, QC, G6V 0A6, Canada

    Saïd Echchakoui

Authors
  1. Saïd Echchakoui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saïd Echchakoui.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 141 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Echchakoui, S. Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales force literature from 1912 to 2019. J Market Anal 8, 165–184 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-020-00081-9

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-020-00081-9

Keywords