Resources and Capabilities From Their Very Outset : A Bibliometric Comparison Between Scopus and the Web of Science

The bibliometric method has proven to be a powerful tool for the analysis of scientific publications, in such a way that allows rating the quality of the knowledge generating process, as well as its impact on firm ś environment. This article presents a comparison between two powerful bibliographic databases in terms of their coverage and the usefulness of their content. The comparison starts with a subject associated to the relationship between resources and capabilities. The outcomes show that the search results differ between both databases. The Web Of Science (WOS), has a greater coverage than SCOPUS has. It also has a greater impact in terms of most cited authors and publications. The search results in the WOS yield articles from 2001, while Scopus yields articles from 1976, however, some of the latter are inconsistent with the topic being searched. The analysis points to a lack of studies regarding resources as foundations of firm ś capabilities; as a result, new research on this field is suggested.


Bibliometrics and Its Importance
Bibliometrics is understood as the quantification of the production and consumption of bibliographic information (Rueda-Klaussen Gómez, Villa-Roel Gutí errez, & Rueda-Klaussen Pinzón, 2005).It dates back to the beginning of the 20th century (Bordons & Zulueta, 1999;Haustein & Lariviè re, 2015;Osareh, 1996), when it was used as a tool for the development of journal collections (Haustein and Lariviè re 2015).However, from the last two decades, this discipline has experienced an increased importance due to technological advances (Bordons & Zulueta, 1999), and also due to the use of mathematical models and refined statistics, which have allowed to examine the scientific activity and productivity on an easier way (Albort-Morant et al., 2017;Albort-Morant & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2016;Daim et al., 2006).By using a bibliometrics set of tools, evaluations on the research quality can be performed, and concrete measures of productivity by journals, countries, and authors are feasible (Abramo and D'Angelo 2011).
Notwithstanding that numerous academics point at scientific databases as the main source for powerful bibliometric analysis (Granda-Orive et al., 2013), bibliometrics extensively depends on the database chosen.Few years ago, the WOS was the only practical tool used to measure the impact of articles, journals, and researchers.Nevertheless, since 2004, other databases like Scopus and Google Scholar have also been used for this purpose (Abramo & D'Angelo, 2011;Kulkarni et al., 2009).This fact has facilitated the searching for a specific topic and the analysis of the contentś importance (Falagas et al., 2008).Bibliometrics has then become an important tool for researchers; therefore, in the literature we can find bibliometric studies that focus on counting citations of a particular topic (Bauer & Bakkalbasi, 2005;Falagas et al., 2008;Jacsó, 2005;Kulkarni et al., 2009;Meho & Rogers, 2008;Noruzi, 2005), or the number of articles and types of journals in a specific area of knowledge within certain period of time.This studies share a common objective, which is to identify the importance of the manuscripts, and, to measure the increase in knowledge in a particular area and its tendencies.As important as this measurements, is to grade the consistency and differences in search results among different databases.For this particular research, the WOS and Scopus were selected given their strong coverage on peer-reviewed journals (Kulkarni et al., 2009).The base for the comparison was "the relationship between resources and capabilities"; a topic that happens to be relevant in the field of strategic management, considering the importance of the resources and capabilities as sources of competitive advantages (Lache, León, Bravo, Becerra, & Forero, 2016;Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997;Torres-Barreto & Antolinez, 2017;Torres-Barreto, Martí nez, Meza-Ariza, & Molina, 2016).Related to this research topic, there are numerous references in the literature that highlight resources as founders of capabilities (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003;Schriber & Löwstedt, 2015), and some others that remark a relationship between R&C and firmś productivity, or financial results (Cruz, López, & Martí n, 2009;Escandón, Rodriguez, & Herná ndez, 2013;Ray, Barney, & Muhanna, 2004;Rivera & Figueroa, 2013).Another group of studies point out a relationship between R&C and the creation of competitive advantages (Barney, 1991(Barney, , 2001(Barney, , 2007;;Dierickx & Cool, 1989;King, 2007;Ma, 1999aMa, , 1999b;;Morgan, Kaleka, & Katsikeas, 2004;Phusavat & Kanchana, 2007;Priem & Butler, 2001b, 2001a;Santhapparaj, Sreenivasan, & Loong, 2006;Sirmon, Hitt, & Ireland, 2007;Torres-Barreto, 2017;Torres-Barreto, Mendez-Duron, & Hernandez-Perlines, 2016;Wernerfelt, 1984;Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003).Based on this previous findings, the intention of this paper is to compare the performance of two powerful databases with respect to an specific search equation and by this way, to deal out with the problem of differences among search results that may lead a researcher to alter the course of their investigation.

Method
In this study we conducted an analysis of productivity, publications and author indicators.We intended to compare the results obtained by using the same search equation in both databases.WOS and Scopus coincide in providing scientific information of articles as well as other academic publications, however, the first source of difference identified was related to the grouping by areas of knowledge.While in WOS we had: economics, administration, and business, in Scopus we had: business, administration-accounting, economics, econometrics, and finance.This fact was considered as a preliminary cause of differences among databases search results.The next step was to compare the productivity (through the number of publications); and the impact of publications (through the number of citations) (Albort-Morant et al., 2017;Albort-Morant & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2016;Cadavid-Higuita, Awad, & Franco-Cardona, 2012).By measuring this two items, we also intended to determine how the academic interest on the relationship between resources and capabilities has grown over time.Regarding the search equation used (See Figure 1), after being built-up it was validated through consultation of various experts.Boolean operators were used to include, group and exclude terms of interest.The search commands lightly differ from one equation to the other due to small differences in the configuration language between both databases.In this case, "source" was the word that better define the relationship between resources and capabilities in different articles.Furthermore, the terms "e-business" and "value", were excluded since the many manuscripts that contained them, didn't relate to the subject of study.It also happened with the author: Pagell.We also selected the areas of knowledge according to the importance of the subject in the field of strategic management and, the interval of the study was 2001 to 2016.

Results
By executing the search equation in both databases we obtained 258 documents in the WOS, (237 were articles).And 189 in Scopus, (106 articles).Since this study exclusively considers the research articles; the remaining documents were excluded.Within this search results we analyzed: -The number of research articles that explore the relationship between resources and capabilities (2001 to 2006).
-The countries with higher productivity.
-The more productive authors.
-The journals with a higher number of publications.
-The most cited articles.
The next finding was related to the coverage of databases, having found 39 articles that coincide in both of them.From those that do not coincide, 198 belong to the WOS and 67 to Scopus, pointing out a higher coverage by the WOS database.
Regarding the databases effectiveness, we found that the percentage of articles that indeed study the relationship between resources and capabilities were 20% in the WOS Vs. 19% in Scopus, which indicates a marginal relevance of the WOS.It was also found that 19 articles have no citations in the WOS, while in Scopus there are 24 articles without any citations, which leads to the conclusion that the WOS articles are more visible and consequently more cited.

Comparison Regarding Year of Publication
The study of the relationship between R&C became relevant in the WOS since 2001, meanwhile in Scopus it began relevant in 1976; however, most of the Scopus publications are not specifically related to the study of the relationship among Resources and Capabilities, some of them analyse a particular resource, or review the relationship between strategy and competitive advantage, and, in some other cases the content of the article doesn't precisely match the topic of study.Considering the previous facts, we may say that this topic became relevant in 2001 (see Figure 2).
Another item of study comprises the quantity of manuscripts published per year within the field of study.Both databases register at least 6 publications per year from 2001, and this number has been increasing over the next 15 years, keeping a growing tendency in Scopus, while registering some inflection points towards increase and decline in the WOS.The highest number of published researches was registered in 2010 for both databases (27 articles in WOS Vs. 12 in Scopus).
Between 2014 and 2015 the number of publications was stable in the WOS, and this number decreased in 2016.Scopus exhibit a decreasing tendency from 2013 to 2016.Source: WOS and Scopus.

Comparison Regarding Productivity by Countries
Tables 1 and 2 show the top 20 countries by productivity.Productivity by country is measured through the total number of papers published per year (TP), the total number of citations (TC), the average number of citations per published paper (C/P) and the H-index.The analysis of both databases yields that the United States of America is positioned as the top country in terms of number of publications (WOS 100 Vs.Scopus 32 documents), it also exhibit the highest number of citations (WOS 5.122 Vs.Scopus 2.762) and the highest H-index (WOS 33 Vs.Scopus 18).These results could be attributed to the amount of money devoted to research in the United States, and also to the degree of access to databases by the side of researchers in that country.
For the rest of the countries the results vary from one database to the other: countries that have a leading productivity position in the WOS, do not maintain this position in Scopus, however, regardless of their position in the list of the top 20, the countries in both databases are mostly the same ones, except Singapore, Turkey, Belgium, Portugal and Hong Kong.
Further observation identifies that the highest productivity of a country does not suggest the highest number of citations.Such is the case of Belgium (3 articles and 287citations in total) and Brazil (5 articles and 22 citations) See Table 1.Something similar occurs in Germany (2 articles and 121 citations.See Table 2).There are also some countries with a small number of citations, this could be due to the novelty character of this papers, or alternatively, that their works can be considered of less academic value.
For Belgium's case, the paper with the highest number of citations refers to the relationship between the firms capability to relate to others within the same sector; and the resources generated by strategic alliances and acquisitions (Vanhaverbeke, Duysters, & Noorderhaven, 2002).Tables 3 and 4 show the number of papers published in the 10 most productive countries.The United States is in the top of the list for both databases, however, the reduced number of total papers published up to these days make evident that the connection between the set of resources that the company poses and the capabilities it develops still haven't been addressed significantly, leaving gaps open to being studied.
The United States register 10 WOS articles published in 2009 and 10 in 2014, while in Scopus the most productive year was 2003 with 4 publications.The particular topics studied in this papers, are the different sources of capabilities, including some resources as generators of firms capabilities (Chadwick & Dabu, 2009;Colakoglu, Yamao, & Lepak, 2014;Helfat & Peteraf, 2003;McKelvie & Davidsson, 2009;Morris, Hammond, & Snell, 2014), also some capabilities that enhance capabilities and influences the generation of resources (Hervas-Oliver, Sempere-Ripoll, & Boronat-Moll, 2014; Kleinbaum & Stuart, 2014;Weeks, 2009), as well as the study of some type of resource or capability and its influence in the company's performance and competitive advantage.

Comparison Regarding Productivity by Authors
There is just one common author between WOS and Scopus in the top 20 list of productive authors.Nevertheless, if we observe the total list of authors, there are 86 in common, including Lengnick-Hall, Helfat, Peteraf, Habbershon, Williams, MacMillan, Verona, Ravasi, Foerstl, Reuter, Hartmann, Chadwick, and Dabu.By other hand, WOS exhibit higher H-indices per author (H=3 and H=2), compared to Scopus (H=0 or H=1), which points out a greater impact of the WOS.
Regarding number of citations per article, the papers that stand out, study the importance of capabilities, their origins and the influence in the performance of the company (Ethiraj, Kale, Krishnan, & Singh, 2005), and firms preferences for external sources in order to develop innovative capabilities (Hagedoorn and Duysters 2002;Vanhaverbeke, Duysters, and Noorderhaven 2002).Regarding the analysis by authors, there are highly relevant differences between both databases, being the WOS the one with the greatest number of citations per author (Scopus=119 cites per author, while WOS=172).

Comparison Regarding Productivity by Journals
The study found 102 journals in the WOS Vs. 86 in Scopus exploring the relationship between resources and capabilities.Tables 7 and 8 display the top 20 journals and its impact factor.WOS top journals are: Strategic Management Journal and Technovation, (12 papers each).Scopus top Journals are: Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, the International Business Management and Technological Forecasting and Social Change (3 publications each).We may say that the impact factor per journal differs in both databases, and, that it is probably due to the different number of publications identified by each database search engine, being the WOS the one that has the greatest coverage and impact.
Lastly, an individual analysis by journal reveals that the journal with the highest impact factor is not always the most productive one.As an example: The Academy of Management Journal has only 1 publication registered in Scopus and has an H-index=10,34, compared to the most productive journal in WOS: The Strategic Management Journal, with 12 publications and a H=4.461.We can deduce that top productive journals of WOS are more cited than top productive journals of Scopus, for this particular area of study.The analysis of the highly relevant papers in both databases shows that most of them study the relationship between resources and capabilities, or the influence of resources on capabilities.See Tables 9 and 10.Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter?
A study in the software services industry.

Conclusion
This bibliometric research was performed to compare two academic databases: WOS and Scopus, in terms of coverage and impact reached by each one.The comparison was performed using the same search equation in both databases and the specific subject chosen was: the relationship between resources and capabilities".The analysis of these two databases allows the identification of differences between the search methods, the operators to formulate the equation, the number of articles contained in each database, the importance of authors, the productivity of the journals and countries and the variability in the areas of knowledge for each database.
Regarding coverage, both databases offer powerful search engines and guarantee the inclusion of a comprehensive range of knowledge, nevertheless, the WOS proves to have a higher coverage.
With regards to productivity, both databases started with a similar number of papers published per year, and follow certain growing tendency, being 2010 the most productive year (27 papers in the WOS Vs. 13 in Scopus).Although they both started registering the same number of papers in 2001, WOS has been increasing the number of published papers in this area of knowledge, and, for 2016 the gap between both databases was considerable in terms of number of papers published (WOS=16, Scopus=6), being the WOS the most productive one.
The analysis by country reveals that the United States has the highest number of papers and the greatest number of citations.Europe and Asia by their side, are the two predominant continents in publishing in this field of knowledge.Even though the list of the top 20 countries regarding productivity do not exactly match for both databases, there is a common factor: the gap between USA and the other countries in terms of total productivity and total citations is really considerable.This fact has proven to be a pattern not only for this particular area of knowledge, but for the global productivity by countries.
As regards of authors, each one of the top 20 authors has published between 1 and 3 papers per year, regardless of the database used.In terms of the H-index, authors in the top 20 list by productivity have an H-index lower than 4, which is an indicative either of the authors novelty character, or, the novelty of this particular subject of study, or either the low interest that academics have placed on the subject until today.In any case, this leaves a well-defined space for new research in this field.
There are big differences concerning to productivity and impact per journal.The WOS exhibit journals with a higher impact factor and productivity compared to Scopus (for the studied subject).There is a group of at least 7 journals (see Table 7) that concentrate the 50% of the top 20 publications by journal.Also "The Academy of Management Journal", has the highest impact factor among all the other journals, subsequently, it would be recommendable for a researcher interested on this topic, to take a close look at it.
Derived from all the analysis performed, the conclusion points at a shortage of studies of resources as foundations of firmś capabilities, therefore, the suggestion is to open new lines of research that allow enlightening the relationships among different resources and a variety of firm's capabilities.This becomes relevant as there is an already proven relationship between resources-capabilities and productivity of firms, therefore affecting the economy of regions and nations.
Lastly, it is important to highlight the advantages of bibliometrics, as it makes possible to evaluate the complete set of indexed publications in selected databases, for a certain period of time (Abramo & D'Angelo, 2011).

Figure
Figure 1.Search equations

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Evolution of the number of publications regarding the relationship between R&C.
Top 10 of countries by productivity -Scopus.2001 capability: How capability gaps and internal social frictions affect internal and external strategic renewal

Table 1 .
Top 20 of productivity by country in the WOS

Table 2 .
Top 20 of productivity by country in Scopus

Table 5 .
WOS: Influential authors regarding the relationship between R&C

Table 6 .
SCOPUS: Influential authors regarding the relationship between R&C.

Table 7 .
WOS most productive journalsThe most cited paper (The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles), was published in 2003 byHelfat and  Peteraf.(993citations in WOS Vs. 1.234 in Scopus).It addresses the concept of the evolutionary lifecycle of capabilities.The study considers that capabilities are originated in a group of individuals with distinctive characteristics and a common objective that implies to generate an ability.They later move into a development stage, where highly depend on what the individuals can achieve with the available resources.Lastly, they enter a stage of maturity, incorporating themselves in the memory of the organization.

Table 9 .
WOS: Most cited papers about the relationship between R&C