research and ranking wikipedia

• Academic Ranking of World Universities
• Global Ranking of Academic Subjects
• Global Ranking of Sport Science Schools and Departments
• Best Chinese Universities Ranking
• Universities
• Media Resource
• Academic Excellence Survey

The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) was first published in 2003 by the Center for World-Class Universities at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China. Since 2009 the ARWU has been published annually and copyrighted by ShanghaiRanking Consultancy. ARWU uses six objective indicators to rank world universities, including the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, number of highly cited researchers selected by Clarivate, number of articles published in journals of Nature and Science, number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index - Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, and per capita performance of a university. More than 2000 universities are ranked by ARWU every year, and the best 1000 are published.

ShanghaiRanking began to publish world university ranking by academic subjects in 2009. By introducing improved methodology, the Global Ranking of Academic Subjects (GRAS) was first published in 2017. The 2021 GRAS contains rankings of universities in 55 subjects across Natural Sciences, Engineering, Life Sciences, Medical Sciences, and Social Sciences. More than 1,800 out of 4,000 universities across 93 countries and regions are finally listed in the rankings. The GRAS rankings use a range of objective academic indicators and third-party data to measure the performance of world universities in relevant subjects, including research output (Q1), research influence (CNCI), international collaboration (IC), research quality (Top), and international academic awards (Award).

• International Advisory Board
• Search for a university

Wikiometrics: a Wikipedia based ranking system

• Published: 19 January 2017
• Volume 20 , pages 1153–1177, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• Gilad Katz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9478-7550 1 &
• Lior Rokach 2  

589 Accesses

10 Citations

Explore all metrics

We present a new concept—Wikiometrics—the derivation of metrics and indicators from Wikipedia. Wikipedia provides an accurate representation of the real world due to its size, structure, editing policy and popularity. We demonstrate an innovative “mining” methodology, where different elements of Wikipedia – content, structure, editorial actions and reader reviews – are used to rank items in a manner which is by no means inferior to rankings produced by experts or other methods. We test our proposed method by applying it to two real-world ranking problems: top world universities and academic journals. Our proposed ranking methods were compared to leading and widely accepted benchmarks, and were found to be extremely correlative but with the advantage of the data being publically available.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

How to design bibliometric research: an overview and a framework proposal

Artificial intelligence in E-Commerce: a bibliometric study and literature review

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics

http://www.shanghairanking.com/index.html

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/

http://www.webometrics.info /

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk /

http://thomsonreuters.com /

http://www.majesticseo.com /

https://www.ahrefs.com

http://www.scimagoir.com /

www.openlinksw.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/WikiProjects_by_changes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia

Agrawal, V.K., Agrawal, V., Rungtusanatham, M.: Theoretical and interpretation challenges to using the author affiliation index method to rank journals. Prod. Oper. Manag. 20 (2), 280–300 (2011)

Article   Google Scholar  

Aguillo, I.F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., Ortega, J.L.: Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics. 85 (1), 243–256 (2010)

Al-Maskari, A., Sanderson, M., and Clough, P. The relationship between IR effectiveness measures and user satisfaction. in Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM (2007)

Auer, S., Bizer, C., Kobilarov, G., Lehmann, J., Cyganiak, R., Ives Z.: DBpedia: a nucleus for a Web of open data. In: Aberer, K., et al. (eds.) The semantic Web. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. vol 4825. Springer, Berlin (2007)

Balog, K., M. Bron, and M. De Rijke, Category-based query modeling for entity search, in Advances in Information Retrieval, Springer. p. 319–331 (2010)

Bergstrom, C.: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News. 68 (5), 314–316 (2007)

Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y., Simester, D.: Goodbye pareto principle, hello long tail: the effect of search costs on the concentration of product sales. Manag. Sci. 57 (8), 1373–1386 (2011)

Calver, M., Bradley, J.: Should we use the mean citations per paper to summarise a journal’s impact or to rank journals in the same field? Scientometrics. 81 (3), 611–615 (2009)

Cheng, C.H., Holsapple, C.W., Lee, A.: Citation-based journal rankings for AI research a business perspective. AI Mag. 17 (2), 87 (1996)

Google Scholar  

Chepelianskii, A.D., Towards physical laws for software architecture . arXiv preprint arXiv:1003.5455, (2010)

Cronin, B., Meho, L.I.: Applying the author affiliation index to library and information science journals. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59 (11), 1861–1865 (2008)

Demartini, G., C.S. Firan, T. Iofciu, and W. Nejdl, Semantically enhanced entity ranking, in Web Information Systems Engineering-WISE 2008. Springer. p. 176–188 (2008)

Eom, Y.-H., Frahm, K.M., Benczúr, A., and Shepelyansky, D.L, Time evolution of Wikipedia network ranking . arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.6601, (2013)

Fader, A., Soderland, S., Etzioni, O., and Center, T. Scaling Wikipedia-based named entity disambiguation to arbitrary web text. in Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on User-contributed Knowledge and Artificial Intelligence: An Evolving Synergy, Pasadena, CA, USA. (2009)

Ferron, M., Massa, P.: The Arab spring| wikirevolutions: Wikipedia as a lens for studying the real-time formation of collective memories of revolutions. International Journal of Communication. 5 , 20 (2011)

Garfield, E.: The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 295 (1), 90–93 (2006)

Hachey, B., Radford, W., Nothman, J., Honnibal, M., Curran, J.R.: Evaluating entity linking with Wikipedia. Artif. Intell. 194 , 130–150 (2013)

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Harless, D. and Reilly, R., Revision of the journal list for doctoral designation . Unpublished report, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. Retrieved June, 1998. 17: (2008)

Harzing, A.-W., Van der Wal, R.: Google scholar: the democratization of citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. 8 (1), 61–73 (2007)

Hoffart, J., M.A. Yosef, I. Bordino, H. Fürstenau, M. Pinkal, M. Spaniol, B. Taneva, S. Thater, and G. Weikum. Robust disambiguation of named entities in text. in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics (2011)

Holsapple, C.W.: A publication power approach for identifying premier information systems journals. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59 (2), 166–185 (2008)

Kaptein, R., Kamps, J.: Exploiting the category structure of Wikipedia for entity ranking. Artif. Intell. 194 , 111–129 (2013)

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Kaptein, R., P. Serdyukov, A. De Vries, and J. Kamps. Entity ranking using Wikipedia as a pivot. in Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Information and Knowl. Manag. ACM (2010)

Kleinberg, J.M.: Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. J. ACM. 46 (5), 604–632 (1999)

Lages, J., Patt, A., and Shepelyansky, D.L., Wikipedia Ranking of World Universities . arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.09021, (2015)

Marginson, S., Van der Wende, M.: To rank or to be ranked: the impact of global rankings in higher education. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 11 (3–4), 306–329 (2007)

McKean, J. and T. Hettmansperger, Robust nonparametric statistical methods: CRC Press (2011)

McKinnon, K.I.: Convergence of the Nelder--mead simplex method to a Nonstationary point. SIAM J. Optim. 9 (1), 148–158 (1998)

Mestyán, M., Yasseri, T., Kertész, J.: Early prediction of movie box office success based on Wikipedia activity big data. PLoS One. 8 (8), e71226 (2013)

Mirizzi, R., A. Ragone, T. Di Noia, and E. Di Sciascio, Ranking the linked data: the case of dbpedia: Springer (2010)

Myers, L. and Robe, J., College rankings: history, criticism and reform . Center for College Affordability and Productivity (NJ1), (2009)

Nielsen, F.Å., Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments. (2011)

Page, L., S. Brin, R. Motwani, and T. Winograd, The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web . (1999)

Pehcevski, J., A.-M. Vercoustre, and J.A. Thom, Exploiting locality of Wikipedia links in entity ranking, in Advances in Information Retrieval, Springer. p. 258–269 (2008)

Pehcevski, J., Thom, J.A., Vercoustre, A.-M., Naumovski, V.: Entity ranking in Wikipedia: utilising categories, links and topic difficulty prediction. Inf. Retr. 13 (5), 568–600 (2010)

Raviv, H., D. Carmel, and O. Kurland. A ranking framework for entity oriented search using Markov random fields. in Proceedings of the 1st Joint International Workshop on Entity-Oriented and Semantic Search. ACM (2012)

Raviv, H., O. Kurland, and D. Carmel. The cluster hypothesis for entity oriented search. in Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM (2013)

Rokach, L.: Applying the publication power approach to artificial intelligence journals. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63 (6), 1270–1277 (2012)

Schloegl, C., Stock, W.G.: Impact and relevance of LIS journals: a scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals—citation analysis versus reader survey. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 55 (13), 1155–1168 (2004)

Serenko, A.: The development of an AI journal ranking based on the revealed preference approach. Journal of Informetrics. 4 (4), 447–459 (2010)

Serenko, A., Dohan, M.: Comparing the expert survey and citation impact journal ranking methods: example from the field of artificial intelligence. Journal of Informetrics. 5 (4), 629–648 (2011)

Suchanek, F.M., Kasneci, G., Weikum, G.: YAGO: a large ontology from Wikipedia and WordNet. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web. 6 (3), 203–217 (2008)

Vercoustre, A.-M., J.A. Thom, and J. Pehcevski. Entity ranking in Wikipedia. in Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Applied computing. ACM (2008a)

Vercoustre, A.-M., J. Pehcevski, and J.A. Thom, Using wikipedia categories and links in entity ranking, in Focused Access to XML Documents, Springer. p. 321–335 (2008b)

Zar, J.H., Spearman rank correlation. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, (1998)

Zaragoza, H., H. Rode, P. Mika, J. Atserias, M. Ciaramita, and G. Attardi. Ranking very many typed entities on wikipedia. in Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM conference on Conference on information and knowledge management. ACM (2007)

Zhirov, A., Zhirov, O., Shepelyansky, D.L.: Two-dimensional ranking of Wikipedia articles. The European Physical Journal B. 77 (4), 523–531 (2010)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel

Lior Rokach

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gilad Katz .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Katz, G., Rokach, L. Wikiometrics: a Wikipedia based ranking system. World Wide Web 20 , 1153–1177 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11280-016-0427-8

Download citation

Received : 09 January 2016

Revised : 10 November 2016

Accepted : 12 December 2016

Published : 19 January 2017

Issue Date : November 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11280-016-0427-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Journey of Stocks

Get wealth advisory now.

Deepak Nitrite

in 63 Months

(Feb'2019 - Apr'2024)

Bajaj Finance

in 85 Months

(Apr'2017 - Apr'2024)

Radico Khaitan

in 54 Months

(Nov'2019 - Apr'2024)

Mold-Tek Packaging

in 49 Months

(Apr'2020 - Apr'2024)

Varun Beverages

in 44 Months

(Sep'2020 - Apr'2024)

in 32 Months

(Sep'2021 - Apr'2024)

Indian Hotels Company

in 21 Months

(Aug'2022 - Apr'2024)

Bharat Electronics

in 6 Months

(Nov'2023 - Apr'2024)

in 24 Months

(May'2022 - Apr'2024)

Phoenix Mills

in 37 Months

(Mar'2021 - Apr'2024)

Bank of Baroda

in 13 Months

(Mar'2023 - Apr'2024)

Torrent Pharmaceuticals

in 7 Months

(Oct'2023 - Apr'2024)

in 76 Months

(Apr'2017 - Jul'2023)

Avenue Supermarts

in 45 Months

(Dec'2019 - Aug'2023)

(Nov'2020 - Jun'2023)

Supreme Industries

in 41 Months

(Nov'2019 - Mar'2023)

Divi's Laboratories

in 33 Months

(Sep'2020 - May'2023)

Amber Enterprises

The data provided above is sourced from NSE

* The performance represented on this page is historical. Please note that past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. Equity investments are subject to market risks. Read all terms & documents carefully. The content on the Equentis - Research & Ranking platform (other than that on the paid customer’s dashboard) is intended to be used for informational purposes only. User must independently research and verify all the information before investing.

Disclaimers:

• Registration granted by SEBI, membership of BASL and certification from NISM in no way guarantee performance of the intermediary or provide any assurance of returns to investors.
• The securities quoted, if any are for illustration only and are not recommendatory.
• Investments in securities market are subject to market risks. Read all the related documents carefully before investing.”

Build your Potential High Growth Portfolio!

Fill the Form to Speak to Our Team

Want Investment Advice? Register Now

expand_more contact_support Want Investment Advice? Register Now

View the latest institution tables

View the latest country/territory tables

2023 tables: Institutions - academic

The 2023 tables are based on Nature Index data from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022. Changes in output from 2021 for the natural sciences can be viewed by using the subject/journals filter.

Table criteria

Each year, the Nature Index publishes tables based on counts of high-quality research outputs in the previous calendar year. Users please note:

• The data behind the tables are based on a relatively small proportion of total research papers, they cover the natural sciences only and outputs are non-normalized (that is, they don’t reflect the size of the country or institution, or its overall research output).
• The Nature Index is one indicator of institutional research performance. The metrics of Count and Share used to order Nature Index listings are based on an institution’s or country’s publication output in 82 natural-science journals through 2022, in 2023 64 health-science journals were added to the Index. The 146 journals in the Nature Index were selected on reputation by an independent panel of leading scientists in their fields.
• Nature Index recognizes that many other factors must be taken into account when considering research quality and institutional performance; Nature Index metrics alone should not be used to assess institutions or individuals.
• Nature Index data and methods are transparent and available under a creative commons licence at nature.com/nature-index/ .
• Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The Nature Index database undergoes regular updating, corrections, adjustment of institutional hierarchies, and removal of retracted papers and thus the live website can differ from the frozen annual tables.

Numerical information only is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

These US companies are best at cutting their emissions to fight climate change

People across America are trying to do their part to fight climate change by buying electric cars, installing solar panels and making decisions large and small that reduce their carbon footprint. Some companies are too.

Those actions can make a big difference: between them, the U.S. industrial and commercial sectors were responsible for 25% of the nation's total carbon dioxide emissions in 2023, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. (Transportation still makes up the lion's share at 38%.)

But which companies are doing the best at reducing their carbon footprint? That's a surprisingly difficult question to answer. It's also an important question for customers and investors who want to support companies making climate-friendly strides in their business.

Currently, there are no federal or even state requirements in place requiring companies to disclose how much they’re lowering their greenhouse gas emissions.

To better understand which U.S. businesses are making progress, USA TODAY has partnered with market research firm Statista to create the second annual America's Climate Leaders list. It provides an easy to comprehend, data-driven metric of companies that have significantly decreased their carbon dioxide emissions (adjusted by revenue) between 2020 and 2022.

Since last year’s list , there was a 16% increase in companies meeting the inclusion criteria. The list includes U.S. based companies with more than $50 million in revenue that reported their carbon emissions independently. To make the list, those companies must have reduced their carbon intensity (carbon emissions divided by revenue) by 3% year-to-year.

Why is it so tough to determine which companies are best at reducing their carbon footprint?

In short: The data is messy and inconsistent.

Evaluations of companies' climate impact require deep dives into multiple, sometimes conflicting metrics. That's because there’s no U.S. requirement that companies disclose their emissions, though many do so voluntarily.

“Data availability is getting better,” said Lisa Abels, a senior analyst with Statista who worked on the list.

It could keep improving, too.

Last month, after a two-year effort, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission passed new rules requiring some public companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. The final result was less strong than originally proposed and its climate disclosure rules don’t begin until 2026 when the first large companies will be required to include information in their annual reports.

As of 2024 an appeals court had temporarily paused the rules, so it’s not clear when or if they will go into effect.

California has also enacted climate-related reporting requirements for companies doing business in California with total annual revenues in excess of $500 million but it will not take effect until January 2025.

With no national requirements for reporting carbon dioxide pollution currently in effect, having more transparency and data about companies’ emissions is “incredibly important,” said Christian Leuz is a professor at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business and a scholar at the Energy Policy Institute. A study he co-authored in 2023 found that if global corporations had to pay for the damages caused by their greenhouse gas production it would cost 44% of their profits .

Data that allows the public to see how emissions relate to companies’ activities and are changing over time lets consumers and investors make informed comparisons between companies – which can have “a real impact,” said Leuz.

“Such benchmarking can create peer pressure, stimulating investors, other stakeholders and customers to call on firms to do more to reduce their emissions. Companies voluntarily making this data public is an important first step,” he said.

Mandates to make such disclosures would “be even better, as it would shine the light on companies with high emissions that are reluctant to provide these data voluntarily,” he added.

How do companies make it on USA TODAY's list of America's Climate Leaders?

The first list, developed last year, began with 2,000 U.S.-based companies which were narrowed to 400 that cut their emissions intensity from 2019 to 2021. For 2024, the list was expanded to 450 companies and looked at their emissions between 2020 and 2022.

The  ranking uses these and other indicators to gain a picture of how good a job  companies have done at lowering their carbon emissions. Because the analysis includes 2020, during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, some of the metrics are difficult to evaluate because of the hit the global economy took, resulting in sharp drops in emissions worldwide.

This year’s analysis compares companies' core emissions adjusted by revenue for the years 2020 and 2022. This measure is called emission intensity. As the pandemic unfolded, 2020 was an especially bad year for revenue for many companies, making 2022 emission intensity lower but that’s partly driven by an increase in revenues after the pandemic years, said Abels.

“The absolute emissions didn’t go down as much I expected or hoped for, which will be important for years to come,” she said. The distortions caused by the pandemic are still visible in this year’s data. Some may still be present in the data used for the rankings in next year's but should be entirely gone by 2026, she said.

Overall, U.S. emissions numbers across the board have been coming down, with the number of million metric tons of carbon dioxide released by the United States down 6.6% since 2019. Much of that decrease came because U.S. electricity is getting cleaner.

What companies ranked highest on USA TODAY's list of America's Climate Leaders?

At the very top of the Climate Leaders list is Dayforce (formerly called Ceridian), a human resources and software company.

By switching to 100% renewable energy across its global operations, Dayforce reduced its greenhouse gas emissions from more than 10,000 metric tons CO2 equivalents in 2020 to less than 500 metric tons CO2 equivalents in 2022.

It is followed by T-Mobile, which was on top of last year’s list. The third spot goes to financial company Cboe Global Markets.

How companies were chosen

The rankings began with a list of more than 2,000 US-based companies with revenue of more than $50 million in 2022. Of those, 700 reported their emissions data, making a verifiable ranking possible. 

Here are some of the data and considerations used in the rankings: 

• Emission intensity : The amount of greenhouse gas a company produced relative to its revenue. This helps put big companies and small companies on a level playing field. 
• Annualized reductions in emission intensity : Calculated between 2020 and 2022. Companies that showed low reductions were not considered. 
• Carbon disclosure rating : A measure of a company’s environmental sustainability. These rankings are administered by CDP, a nonprofit that runs a global disclosure system for companies’ environmental impacts. 
• Other criteria : Some enterprises were excluded if known business practices suggested they couldn’t be seen as a climate leader.  
• Data used : Scope 1 and 2 emissions, based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, the world’s most widely used greenhouse gas accounting standard. 

The full, interactive list below allows readers to view a variety of criteria, including year-over-year reduction of emission intensity, emission intensity, how many tons of  CO2 equivalents  the company emitted, total emissions reduction, and whether a company participated in two highly regarded programs that set targets for and account for emissions, the  CDP  and  Science Based Targets initiative .   

Welcome to Equentis Research and Ranking.

We make equity investments easy for you 

Sign in to Your Customized Portfolio

Not an existing subscriber? Start Now!

OTP Verification

Did’t get OTP ? Resend OTP

Login with your Password

Login with Password

Forgot Password?

Login with OTP

Forgot Your Password

Back to login

Having trouble verifying your email id? Support

SEBI Registered Investment Adviser Details: Registered name: Equentis Wealth Advisory Services Private Limited , Type of registration: Non-Individual , Registration No.: INA000003874. , Validity: Dec 08, 2015 – Perpetual

Copyright © 2023 Equentis Wealth Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Account Blocked

Your account has been blocked due to excess invalid attempts. You have entered wrong password more than 4 times.

For further assistance please contact [email protected]

An OTP Is Sent to Your Registered Email Address. .

An OTP Is Sent to Your Registered Mobile Number & Email Address. -->

Reset Your Password

Your password must.

Be at least 8 characters Include an Uppercase letter Include a number or a special character Not start or end with a space

Confirm Password

Your password must be the same as the new password.

• All subject areas
• Agricultural and Biological Sciences
• >> Animal Science and Zoology
• >> Aquatic Science
• >> Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
• >> Food Science
• >> Forestry
• >> Plant Science
• >> Soil Science
• Arts and Humanities
• >> Classics
• >> History
• >> Literature and Literary Theory
• >> Philosophy
• >> Religious Studies
• Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
• Business, Management and Accounting
• Computer Science
• Earth and Planetary Sciences
• >> Atmospheric Science
• >> Geology
• >> Oceanography
• >> Paleontology
• >> Space and Planetary Science
• Economics, Econometrics and Finance
• Engineering
• >> Aerospace Engineering
• >> Architecture
• >> Automotive Engineering
• >> Biomedical Engineering
• >> Building and Construction
• >> Civil and Structural Engineering
• >> Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
• >> Mechanical Engineering
• >> Ocean Engineering
• Environmental Science
• Mathematics
• >> Anatomy
• >> Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
• >> Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
• >> Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
• >> Dermatology
• >> Epidemiology
• >> Gastroenterology
• >> Geriatrics and Gerontology
• >> Infectious Diseases
• >> Nephrology
• >> Obstetrics and Gynecology
• >> Oncology
• >> Ophthalmology
• >> Otorhinolaryngology
• >> Pathology and Forensic Medicine
• >> Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
• >> Psychiatry and Mental Health
• >> Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
• >> Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
• >> Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
• >> Rheumatology
• >> Surgery
• >> Urology
• Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
• Physics and Astronomy
• Social Sciences
• >> Anthropology
• >> Communication
• >> Demography
• >> Education
• >> Gender Studies
• >> Geography, Planning and Development
• >> Law
• >> Library and Information Sciences
• >> Sociology and Political Science
• Overall Rank
• Research Rank
• Innovation Rank
• Societal Rank
• All sectors
• Universities
• All regions and countries
• Asiatic Region
• Eastern Europe
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Northern America
• Pacific Region
• Western Europe
• ARAB COUNTRIES
• IBEROAMERICA
• NORDIC COUNTRIES
• Afghanistan
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Brunei Darussalam
• Burkina Faso
• Côte d’Ivoire
• Czech Republic
• Democratic Republic Congo
• French Guiana
• Kosovo (UNMIK)
• Multinational
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• North Korea
• Philippines
• Puerto Rico
• Russian Federation
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saudi Arabia
• South Africa
• South Korea
• Switzerland
• Syrian Arab Republic
• Trinidad and Tobago
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom
• United States
• Vatican City State
• Infographics
• Methodology
• Edit Cookie Consent
• Legal Notice
• Privacy Policy
• Overall Ranking
• University Rankings
• Government Rankings
• Health Rankings
• Private Rankings
• Other Rankings
• Research Rankings
• Innovation Rankings
• Societal Rankings

Reference management. Clean and simple.

The top list of academic research databases

2. Web of Science

5. ieee xplore, 6. sciencedirect, 7. directory of open access journals (doaj), get the most out of your academic research database, frequently asked questions about academic research databases, related articles.

Whether you are writing a thesis , dissertation, or research paper it is a key task to survey prior literature and research findings. More likely than not, you will be looking for trusted resources, most likely peer-reviewed research articles.

Academic research databases make it easy to locate the literature you are looking for. We have compiled the top list of trusted academic resources to help you get started with your research:

Scopus is one of the two big commercial, bibliographic databases that cover scholarly literature from almost any discipline. Besides searching for research articles, Scopus also provides academic journal rankings, author profiles, and an h-index calculator .

• Coverage: 90.6 million core records
• References: N/A
• Discipline: Multidisciplinary
• Access options: Limited free preview, full access by institutional subscription only
• Provider: Elsevier

Web of Science also known as Web of Knowledge is the second big bibliographic database. Usually, academic institutions provide either access to Web of Science or Scopus on their campus network for free.

• Coverage: approx. 100 million items
• References: 1.4 billion
• Access options: institutional subscription only
• Provider: Clarivate (formerly Thomson Reuters)

PubMed is the number one resource for anyone looking for literature in medicine or biological sciences. PubMed stores abstracts and bibliographic details of more than 30 million papers and provides full text links to the publisher sites or links to the free PDF on PubMed Central (PMC) .

• Coverage: approx. 35 million items
• Discipline: Medicine and Biological Sciences
• Access options: free
• Provider: NIH

For education sciences, ERIC is the number one destination. ERIC stands for Education Resources Information Center, and is a database that specifically hosts education-related literature.

• Coverage: approx. 1.6 million items
• Discipline: Education
• Provider: U.S. Department of Education

IEEE Xplore is the leading academic database in the field of engineering and computer science. It's not only journal articles, but also conference papers, standards and books that can be search for.

• Coverage: approx. 6 million items
• Discipline: Engineering
• Provider: IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)

ScienceDirect is the gateway to the millions of academic articles published by Elsevier, 1.4 million of which are open access. Journals and books can be searched via a single interface.

• Coverage: approx. 19.5 million items

The DOAJ is an open-access academic database that can be accessed and searched for free.

• Coverage: over 8 million records
• Provider: DOAJ

JSTOR is another great resource to find research papers. Any article published before 1924 in the United States is available for free and JSTOR also offers scholarships for independent researchers.

• Coverage: more than 12 million items
• Provider: ITHAKA

Start using a reference manager like Paperpile to save, organize, and cite your references. Paperpile integrates with PubMed and many popular databases, so you can save references and PDFs directly to your library using the Paperpile buttons:

Scopus is one of the two big commercial, bibliographic databases that cover scholarly literature from almost any discipline. Beside searching for research articles, Scopus also provides academic journal rankings, author profiles, and an h-index calculator .

PubMed is the number one resource for anyone looking for literature in medicine or biological sciences. PubMed stores abstracts and bibliographic details of more than 30 million papers and provides full text links to the publisher sites or links to the free PDF on PubMed Central (PMC)