Comparative Analysis of the Bibliographic Data Sources Using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Lens

Abstract

Background: Bibliometric analysis is a quantitative tool to evaluate collaboration and the impact of publications within a given field. This study aims to elucidate the methodologies used in different databases for bibliometric analysis, offering a detailed comparison of their pros and cons.  Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and Lens were used in this comparative study, with search examples of the “University of Jordan” in the period (2019-2023). 2739, 7777, 7518, and 4326 publications were retrieved from these databases, respectively. PubMed has the least number of documents due to its limited scope. Microsoft Excel 2019 and VOSviewer 1.6.20 were used to assess the data analysis. Results: Annual growth was observed across all databases, except for Lens database. The majority of top authors were found to be shared among different databases, with variations in the number of documents, and WOS had the least number of documents per author. The top countries were shared between Scopus and WOS, but there was a substantial difference in the number of citations between WOS and Scopus. In institutions analysis, most were ranked as institute with their department, except in WOS where the results were reported as generalizable to the institute level. Keyword analysis revealed a significant similarity between different databases. Journals distribution also had a great similarity across different databases and variable documents. Conclusion: Researchers should choose a bibliographic database based on their specific needs, considering factors like coverage and accessibility. This study provides a comparative analysis of various databases, including the Lens database.