Talk:Scopus

I have added an {{advert}} template to this article because as it stands it only covers the attractive features of the service, there is no mention of the fact that (as far as I am aware) scopus is only available to subscribing institutions, nor of the comparative coverage with other services such as the Web of Science. Echinoidea (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

:I don't know who removed the {{advert}} tag, but it still reads like a POV ad. I added it back. Chituokol1 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've edited the article and removed the advert tag. Before putting it back, please state on this talk page why you dfeel this looks like an ad. The article even has (unsourced!) criticism, not exactly a hallmark of marketing... --Crusio (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• A major part of this article is not of wikipedia material, including a whole section "Guidelines from Scopus to Publishers & Editors for Journal Selection Process" 1009neanderthal (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• I removed the unsourced and obviously cut-and-paste content about why Scopus is so great and how to get included. Fences&Windows 08:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The introduction still reads like Elsevier copy. I am going to slightly reduce it now but the article still needs the {{advert}} IMO. Zaslav (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Scopus logo.png

Does anyone know the the meaning of the sectioned "O" ( http://www.archives-pmr.org/webfiles/images/scopus_logo.gif ) of the previous scOpus logo? Hippo99 (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

:Adding to this discussion not about the old logo but to say that it seems like there's a new logo, even newer than the one located in the article. I'm going to do my best to upload that to the page now. Please correct me if I have made any errors. Thank you. C19H12ampION (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The article currently reads "In 2016, a free website, Scopus CiteScore,[3] was introduced. It provides citation data for all 25,000+ active titles". However, as far as I understand it, the site does not provide "citation data" but the CiteScore scores instead. Although this is more than what Clarivate offers (whose JCR impact factor is available by subscription only), it is far from offering the raw citation data. Unless I am missing an important point here, I'd say this should be changed to "It provides CiteScore score for all 25,000+ active titles" instead. --Diegodlh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

اريد عنوان رسالة ماجيستير 134.35.45.45 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)