# Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.05053 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.05053/

## Key facts

- Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 15 Aug 2018.

## Built on by (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Vision-Based Human Pose Estimation via Deep Learning: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.13872/) (2023)
- [Machine Learning for Software Engineering: A Tertiary Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09425/) (2022)
- [How many preprints have actually been printed and why: a case study of computer science preprints on arXiv](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01899/) (2023)
- [Quantitative Technology Forecasting: a Review of Trend Extrapolation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.02549/) (2024)
- [VizCV: AI-assisted visualization of researchers' publications tracks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.08691/) (2025)
- [Machine Learning Models for the Early Detection of Burnout in Software Engineering: a Systematic Literature Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.23063/) (2026)
- [AskChem: Claim-Centered Infrastructure for Chemistry Literature Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.28618/) (2026)
- [Eleven Years of BRACIS: A Meta-Scientific Study of the Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.09964/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Despite citation counts from Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus being widely consulted by researchers and sometimes used in research evaluations, there is no recent or systematic evidence about the differences between them. In response, this paper investigates 2,448,055 citations to 2,299 English-language highly-cited documents from 252 GS subject categories published in 2006, comparing GS, the WoS Core Collection, and Scopus. GS consistently found the largest percentage of citations across all areas (93%-96%), far ahead of Scopus (35%-77%) and WoS (27%-73%). GS found nearly all the WoS (95%) and Scopus (92%) citations. Most citations found only by GS were from non-journal sources (48%-65%), including theses, books, conference papers, and unpublished materials. Many were non-English (19%-38%), and they tended to be much less cited than citing sources that were also in Scopus or WoS. Despite the many unique GS citing sources, Spearman correlations between citation counts in GS and WoS or Scopus are high (0.78-0.99). They are lower in the Humanities, and lower between GS and WoS than between GS and Scopus. The results suggest that in all areas GS citation data is essentially a superset of WoS and Scopus, with substantial extra coverage.