If someone's h-index on Scopus is 4, but 7 on google scholar, which of these will be seen as more valid by the university's administration, tenure committee, etc?
Online descriptions say that Scopus (as well as Web of Science) are more accurate than google scholar in terms of this index.
Also, has anyone at all in recent years ever received tenure at an R1 with an h-index of 4 (this based on articles and no book)?
Scopus has half of my citations compared to my Google Scholar or Researchgate pages. I don't think Scopus is more accurate.
Scopus citations seem to downplay co-authored papers in which someone is like the fourth listed author. Is that the cause of the discrepancy you're seeing?
Scopus has half of my citations compared to my Google Scholar or Researchgate pages. I don't think Scopus is more accurate.
Scopus citations seem to downplay co-authored papers in which someone is like the fourth listed author. Is that the cause of the discrepancy you're seeing?
They say one of my papers has 0 citations. Google and Researchgate found a couple of articles and some books citing it. Another paper on Scopus is missing citations from good journals that the other two found. Scopus also misclassified an empirical article of mine and doesn't seem to have my citations from non-English journals.
Google tends to find theses, Researchgate tends to find book chapters, both of which can inflate impact, depending on whether you think those matter. Scopus seems to find neither. It seems inferior on just about every level.
Useful overview on how Scopus, Web of Scholars, and Google respectively calculate the h-index:
https://people.utm.my/ninadiana/the-difference-between-h-index-in-google-scholar-scopus-and-web-of-science/
This indicates Scopus is the most accurate in determining academic productivity.
Useful overview on how Scopus, Web of Scholars, and Google respectively calculate the h-index:
https://people.utm.my/ninadiana/the-difference-between-h-index-in-google-scholar-scopus-and-web-of-science/
This indicates Scopus is the most accurate in determining academic productivity.
The author explicitly notes that it's weak for sociology. And it doesn't cite books, which is a problem for a field that publishes both books and journal articles. Scopus is interesting and helpful, but I wouldn't consider it as most accurate for sociology.
Scopus has a lot of missing material. (Not just journals, but specific years of journals missing for no reason.) Was on a committee where we ended up having to compare Google, Scopus, and one other (I forget which), and Scopus was exceptionally bad. I wouldn't use it for any purpose.