iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry


Assessing the scientific productivity of Italian forest researchers using the Web of Science, SCOPUS and SCIMAGO databases

G Chirici   

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 101-107 (2012)
doi: https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0613-005
Published: May 30, 2012 - Copyright © 2012 SISEF

Short Communications

For long time a quantitative assessment of the productivity of Italian researchers has been lacking; the first and unique assessment was the Three-Year Research Evaluation for the period 2001-2003. Italian Law 240/2010, ruling the organization of research and universities, requires a system for the evaluation of the scientific productivity of Italian researchers. In 2011, both the National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes (ANVUR) and the National University Council (CUN) proposed a set of evaluation criteria based on a bibliometric approach with indexes calculated using the information from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WOS) or the Elsevier SciVerse SCOPUS databases. The aim of this study is twofold: (i) to present the results of an assessment of the global aggregated scientific productivity of the Italian forestry community for 1996-2010 using the SCOPUS data available from the on-line SCIMAGO system; and (ii) to compare the WOS and SCOPUS databases with respect to three indexes (number of publications, number of citations, h-index) of the scientific productivity for university forest researchers in Italy. Two subcategories of forestry were considered: AGR05 - forest management and silviculture, and AGR06 - wood technology. Out of a total of 84 authors, 76 were considered in the analysis because not affected by unresolved homonymity or duplication. Overall, the trend in scientific productivity for Italian forestry is promising. Italy ranked 10th in terms of the h-index with an increasing trend in importance relative to other European countries, though the scientific contribution of authors was largely heterogeneous. Both WOS and SCOPUS databases were suitable sources of information for evaluating the scientific productivity of Italian authors. Although the two databases did not produce meaningful differences for any of the three indexes, the advantages and disadvantages of the two sources must be carefully considered if used operationally to evaluate the Italian scientific productivity.


Scientific Evaluation, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Google Scholar, SCIMAGO

Authors’ address

G Chirici
ECOGEOFOR - Laboratorio di Ecologia e Geomatica Forestale, Dipartimento di SBioscenze e Territorio, Università degli Studi del Molise, c.da Fonte Lappone snc, I-86090 Pesche (Isernia - Italy)

Corresponding author


Chirici G (2012). Assessing the scientific productivity of Italian forest researchers using the Web of Science, SCOPUS and SCIMAGO databases. iForest 5: 101-107. - doi: 10.3832/ifor0613-005

Academic Editor

Marco Borghetti

Paper history

Received: Feb 08, 2012
Accepted: Apr 19, 2012

First online: May 30, 2012
Publication Date: Jun 29, 2012
Publication Time: 1.37 months

Breakdown by View Type

(Waiting for server response...)

Article Usage

Total Article Views: 50537
(from publication date up to now)

Breakdown by View Type
HTML Page Views: 42340
Abstract Page Views: 2392
PDF Downloads: 4220
Citation/Reference Downloads: 82
XML Downloads: 1503

Web Metrics
Days since publication: 4380
Overall contacts: 50537
Avg. contacts per week: 80.77

Article Citations

Article citations are based on data periodically collected from the Clarivate Web of Science web site
(last update: Feb 2023)

Total number of cites (since 2012): 20
Average cites per year: 1.67


Publication Metrics

by Dimensions ©

Articles citing this article

List of the papers citing this article based on CrossRef Cited-by.

Abramo G, D’Angelo C, Viel F (2011)
The field-standardized average impact of national research systems compared to world average: the case of Italy. Scientometrics 88 (2): 599-615.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Abramo G, D’Angelo C (2011a)
Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics 87 (3): 499-514.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Abramo G, D’Angelo C (2011b)
National-scale research performance assessment at the individual level. Scientometrics 86 (2): 347-364.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Aguillo IF (2011)
Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics.
CrossRef | Gscholar
ANVUR (2011)
Criteri e parametri di valutazione dei candidati e dei commissari dell’abilitazione scientifica nazionale. Consiglio Direttivo Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del sistema Universitario e della Ricerca, 22 giugno 2011, Rome, Italy.
Aksnes DW, Taxt RE (2004)
Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation 13 (1): 33-41.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Bar-Ilan J (2007)
Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 74 (2): 257-271.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Bar-Ilan J (2010)
Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 82 (3): 495-506.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L (2006)
Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries 3: 7.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Bauer K, Bakkalbasi N (2005)
An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine 11 (9).
CrossRef | Gscholar
CUN (2011)
Proposta su “criteri e parametri per la valutazione” ai fini di cui all’Art 16 comma 3 lettere a) e h) della Legge 30 Dicembre 2010, n. 240. Consiglio Universitario Nazionale, prot. 786 del 09/06/2011, Rome, Italy.
Darario C, Moed HF (2011)
Is Italian science declining? Research Policy 40 (10): 1380-1392.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Garcia-Perez MA (2010)
Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google scholar: a case study for the computation of h-indices in psychology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61 (10): 2070-2085.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Garfield E (1955)
Citation indexes to science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122 (3159): 108-111.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Garfield E (1972)
Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178 (4060): 471-479.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Glänzel W (1996)
The needs for standards in bibliometric research and technology. Scientometrics 35 (2): 167-176.
CrossRef | Gscholar
González-Pereira B, Guerrero-Bote VP, Moya-Anegón F (2010)
A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: the SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics 4: 379-391.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Gurney T, Horlings E, van den Besselaar P (2011)
Author disambiguation using multi-aspect similarity indicators. Scientometrics 91 (2): 435-449.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Hirsch JE (2005)
An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102 (46): 16569-16572.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Kostoff RN (1996)
Performance measures for government-sponsored research: Overview and background. Scientometrics 36 (3): 281-292.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Jacsó P (2005)
As we may search - Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science 89: 1537-1547.
Jacsó P (2006)
Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review 30 (3): 297-309.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Judit BI (2008)
Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century. A review. Journal of Informetrics 2 (1): 1-52.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Li J, Burnham JF, Lemley T, Britton RM (2010)
Citation analysis: comparison of Web of Science, Scopus, Scifinder, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries 7 (3): 196-217.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Lu K, Wolfram D (2010)
Geographic characteristics of the growth of informetrics literature 1987-2008. Journal of Informetrics 4: 591-601.
CrossRef | Gscholar
MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR (1996)
Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics 36 (3): 435-444.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Martin BR (1996)
The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics 36 (3): 343-362.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Meho L, Yang K (2007)
Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus SCOPUS and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (13): 2105-2125.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Mikki S (2010)
Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for earth sciences. Scientometrics 82 (2): 321-331.
CrossRef | Gscholar
MIUR (2011)
Cerca Università. Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca, Rome, Italy.
Online | Gscholar
Nagpaul PS (1995)
Quasi-quantitative measures of research performance: an assessment of construct validity and reliability. Scientometrics 33 (2): 169-185.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Narin F (1976)
Evaluative bibliometrics: the use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Computer Horizons, Cherry Hill, NJ, USA, pp. 456.
Scimago (2007)
SJR - Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Web site.
Online | Gscholar
Seglen PO (1998)
Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 69 (3): 224-229.
CrossRef | Gscholar
So CYK (1998)
Citation ranking versus expert judgment in evaluating communication scholars: effects of research specialty size and individual prominence. Scientometrics 41 (3): 325-333.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Spearman C (1904)
The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology 15: 72-101.
CrossRef | Gscholar
van Raan AFJ (2000)
The Pandora’s box of citation analysis: measuring scientific excellence’the last evil? In: “The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield” (Cronin B, Atkins HB eds). Information Today, Medford, NJ, USA, pp. 301-319.
VTR (2006)
Italian Triennial Research Evaluation - VTR 2001-2003. Risultati delle valutazioni dei Panel di Area. Web Site.
Online | Gscholar
Wilcoxon F (1945)
Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1 (6): 80-83.
CrossRef | Gscholar

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. More info