Journal of Marketing Analytics

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-020-00081-9

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric
analysis: the case of sales force literature from 1912 to 2019
Saïd Echchakoui1

Revised: 14 August 2019

© Springer Nature Limited 2020

Abstract
To conduct a bibliometric analysis, several researchers retrieve publications from Scopus or/and Web of Science (WOS)
databases. When these scholars consider both Scopus and WOS databases, they mostly make two bibliometric analysis: one
from Scopus database and the other from WOS database. A few researchers merge the two databases to conduct a single
analysis, but they do not specify how they did it. This paper aims to advance the bibliometric analysis by addressing two
points. First, this research claims that making a bibliometric analysis that takes information from Scopus or/and separately
from WOS cannot give a broader view of knowledge and tendencies in a field. To prove this claim, we retrieve papers from
Scopus and WOS databases to make a bibliometric analysis of sales force literature that covers from 1912 to 2019. Results
show that there are many disparities between WOS and merged database, and between this latter and WOS database regarding
bibliometric analyses, especially among primary productive authors, the most influential papers, and keyword occurrences.
Second, this research proposes a four-step procedure that merges these two databases to allow more reliable bibliometric
analyses. This procedure was explicitly shown by using the bibliometric analysis of sales force literature during 1912–2019.

Keywords Bibliometric analysis · Scopus · WOS · Merged database · Sales force literature · R package · VOSviewer

Introduction Such analyses have been used to assess collaborative econ-

The definition of bibliometric analysis has expanded since
its introduction. In 1969, it referred to “the application of
mathematical and statistical methods to books and other
media of communication” (Pritchard 1969, p. 348), but a
contemporary definition from Muhuri et al. (2019) suggests
that it represents an analysis method of research structure
and tendencies in a body of literature. Ellegaard and Wallin
(2015) argue that bibliometric analysis can be employed to
categorize aspects of science, such as the most contributing
authors, journals, institutions, universities, and countries.
Bibliometric analysis is, thus, paramount to studying lit-
erature tendencies and the state of knowledge across fields.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (https​://doi.org/10.1057/s4127​0-020-00081​-9) contains
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
* Saïd Echchakoui
said_echchakoui@uqar.ca
1
Management Department, University of Quebec
at Rimouski, 1595 Boulevard Alphonse‑Desjardins, Lévis,
QC G6V 0A6, Canada
omy (Ertz and Leblanc-Proulx 2019), Industry 4.0 (Muhuri
et al. 2019), tourism and sustainability (Garrigos-Simon
et al. 2018), and creativity in business economics (Castillo-
Vergara et al. 2018) literature.
Bibliometric analysis clusters into three techniques (Fab-
regat-Aibar et al. 2019, Hall 2011). In the first, the evaluative
technique, analysis focuses on three measures—influence
(e.g., citation numbers), productivity (e.g., publication num-
bers), and hybrid (e.g., h-index), which includes both influ-
ence and productivity (Hall 2011). The second, the relational
technique, identifies networks among publications, journals,
or authors (Fabregat-Aibar et al. 2019). The third, called the
review technique, is the classical approach, during which
researchers conduct systematic literature reviews based on
the literature or meta-analyses (Fabregat-Aibar et al. 2019).
We focus on the first and second techniques—evaluative and
relational.
To conduct bibliometric analyses, researchers retrieve
publications primarily from the Web of Science (WOS)
and Scopus databases. Some authors assess only one or the
other, and only a few use both. When researchers use both
databases during bibliometric analysis, they analyze them

Vol.:(0123456789)

separately because it is difficult to merge the two manually
due to disparate tag fields. For example, author citations in
Scopus are represented by the “Cited-By” tag field, which is
equivalent to the “Cited-Reference” tag in WOS. Thus, even
if a researcher retrieves publications from the two databases
using the same library format as the bib file, it is difficult to
merge the two to conduct unique analyses, especially when
the databases are large. A few researchers merge the two
databases to conduct a single analysis, but they do not spec-
ify how they did it (Ertz and Leblanc-Proulx 2019), which is
important because if the merged file method is unsuitable, all
subsequent bibliometric analyses are likely inappropriate. To
limit this problem, we conduct bibliometric analysis of sales
force literature by retrieving information from both WOS
and Scopus. We then conduct three bibliometric analyses
using Scopus, WOS, and a merged database, the purpose of
which is demonstrating disparities among results between
MDB and Scopus bibliometric analysis as well as between
MDB and WOS.
This paper makes two main contributions to the litera-
ture based on the bibliometric analysis of sales force lit-
erature that covers 1912 to 2019. First, we show that even
if there are correlations between Scopus and WOS, biblio-
metric analysis results are different from considering the
merged database. Specifically, this study shows that among
ten commonly used bibliometric analysis (e.g., productive
authors, frequency words), there are seven (70%) disparities
between these databases (MDB and Scopus) and 80% differ-
ences between MDB and WOS databases. Second, although
many bibliometric analyses appear in the literature that use
Scopus and WOS, none demonstrate how to conduct appro-
priate analyses using the two databases. So, in this research,
we propose a procedure containing four steps to perform
a merged database that combines Scopus and WOS and
removes duplicate publications.
Comparison overview between WOS
and Scopus
Previously called Web of Knowledge, WOS is a group of
databases managed by Thomson Reuters Institute of Sci-
entific Information (ISI) that includes a collection of data-
bases that cover such topics as science, social sciences, and
humanities (i.e., Core Collection), computing (i.e., Inspec),
and biology (i.e., Biosis). WOS was traditionally the exclu-
sive and largest accessible database for bibliometric analysis,
but since its introduction by Elsevier and its ease of acces-
sibility in universities worldwide, Scopus became a major
competitor of WOS for conducting such analyses. The ques-
tion of which to use during analysis has, thus, progressively
become an important topic in the literature. Researchers use
various indicators to compare the two databases, including
S. Echchakoui
general characteristics and coverage (Norris and Oppenheim
2007; Archambault et al. 2009), citation-based rankings
and citation counts (Harzing and Alakangas 2016), journal
classification methods (Wang and Waltman 2016), keyword
assignation to articles (Bartol and Mackiewicz-Talarczyk
2015), and Meyer’s Index, which compares the singularity
of a database (Sánchez et al. 2017). Based on these compari-
sons, we describe singularities and correlations between the
two databases.
WOS and Scopus singularities
Comparisons between WOS and Scopus have revealed
advantages, or singularities, of WOS. Goodman and Deis
(2007) show that WOS providing greater coverage across
years, and Archambault et al. (2006) argue that WOS cov-
ers western, English-language journals well. Chirici (2012)
demonstrates that across numerous disciplines, WOS offers a
varied range of information. Disadvantages of WOS regard-
ing coverage in comparison to Scopus were used by some
authors to espouse advantages of WOS. Bradford’s Law sug-
gests that about 90% of significant literature in an area is
found in only a few journals (Garfield 1971). Zyoud et al.
(2017), thus, argue that WOS including the most reliable,
high-impact scientific studies.
The major advantage of Scopus is its greater publication
coverage. Sánchez et al. (2017) argue that Scopus covers
wine tourism literature better than WOS doing, reporting
that regarding unique documents, WOS contains 35% of
journals and 40% of articles, and Scopus includes 59% of
journals and 63% of articles. Mingers and Lipitakis (2010)
similarly suggest that WOS does not cover publications in
administration and business management literature well, and
Goodman and Deis (2007) argue that Scopus offers superior
journal selection. Another advantage of Scopus is that in
addition to articles, the database contains other documents
such as conference proceedings and books (Fingerman
2006). De Moya-Anegón et al. (2007) argue that Scopus
covers publications from developing countries better than
WOS does, suggesting that Scopus also includes more non-
English-language publications.
WOS and Scopus correlation
Although there are many singularities for each database,
there is also a correlation between them. Archambault
et al. (2009) illustrate that although the two databases dif-
fer in terms of scope and policy coverage, they correlate
highly. Gavel and Iselid (2008) argue that WOS contained
54% of Scopus’ journal titles, and Scopus covers 84% of
WOS’ titles. Sánchez et al. (2017) found a high correlation
­(R2 = 0.78) between WOS and Scopus regarding the num-
ber of articles. They also report that researchers have found
Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales…
Fig. 1  Annual publication in sales force literature in Scopus, WOS, and merged databases
high average correlations between the two databases in areas
such as the social sciences (23%), health sciences (32%), and
physical sciences (30%).
Comparisons between WOS and Scopus regarding con-
ducting bibliometric analyses do not suggest superiority of
one over the other (Sánchez et al. 2017). We, thus, assume
that both databases are important, arguing that to conduct
appropriate bibliometric analyses, it is best to use both
because one completes the other. Escalona et al. (2010)
argue that WOS and Scopus are complementary, and Mon-
geon and Paul-Hus (2016) suggest that both should be used.
Since they are complements and a correlation of publication
coverage is evident between the two databases, the question
of how to merge them into one database is paramount.
Method to merge WOS and Scopus
for bibliometric analysis
The first step to merging the two databases is preparing them
for a topic of study (e.g., sales force literature).
WOS and Scopus database creation
To construct both WOS and Scopus databases for sales
force bibliometric analysis, we used the Preferred Report-
ing Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
(PRISMA) method introduced by Moher et al. (2009), a
method used commonly to perform bibliometric analyses.
To select publications from a database, PRISMA includes
four steps—identification of studies, screening, eligibility,
and inclusion.
During identification, we used several terms to retrieve
publications from both WOS and Scopus, including “sales-
person” OR “salesman” OR “salespeople” OR “sales force”
OR “salesforce”. Such identification yielded 17,365 and
11,431 publications in Scopus and WOS, respectively. Two
substages were used during screening. During the first stage,
we removed duplicate publications from each database, and
during the second, we used screening criteria on both data-
bases. We retained only English-language publications and
excluded document types “book series” OR “books” OR
“trade publications” OR “undefined”. We, thus, retained
13,273 studies in Scopus and 6884 in WOS. During the
eligibility step, we excluded publications unrelated to sales
force literature. For example, some articles associated with
salesforce software and others generally were unrelated to
sales force literature. We also removed publications with-
out International Standard Serial Numbers (ISSN) because
we examined only publications from recognized sources.
During the inclusion step, we exported each database to the
Endnote Library (Fig. 1). We created two composite libraries
in Endnote. The first, labeled WOS, contained 5469 pub-
lications, and the second, labeled Scopus, included 7540
publications. We did not remove publications between
WOS and Scopus databases; we conducted this operation
later because we needed to conduct bibliometric analyses
on each database before merging them. In a subsequent sec-
tion, we demonstrate how to remove duplicate publications
using Excel VBA.
 S. Echchakoui

Table 1  Main information of sales force publications in Scopus, WOS, and merged databases
Step Objective Procedures Action

Step 1 Convert WOS and Scopus databases to
WOS and Scopus to bibliography files.
Step 2 Convert both WOS.bib and Scopus.bib to
“bibtex” files.
Step 3 Format the WOS and the Scopus bibtex
files to have the same tag fields.
Step 4 Merge the two databases in R or Rstudio
and remove duplicates.
Convert each database separately from
Endnote to “.bib” files
Change the Endnote’s BibTex bibliography
template.
Use Rstudio (or R) by loading the biblio-
metrix package.
Or, for non-coders, use the biblioshiny
library.
Format the WOS.bib and the Scopus.bib
files.
Format the Scopus.bib files.
Convert the WOS.bib and the Scopus.
bib files to WOS.xlsx and Scopus.xlsx,
respectively, in Rstudio.
Copy one file to the other manually.
Remove duplications.
Select “BibTex Export” library from Endnote
style as shown in Annex 1.
Use Template in Annex 2.
From R software do:
> install.packages(“bibliometrix”)
>library(bibliometrix)
Follow the tutorial method in the following
link made by Aria and Cuccurullo (2017):
https​://cran.r-proje​ct.org/web/packa​ges/bibli​
ometr​ix/vigne​ttes/bibli​ometr​ix-vigne​tte.
html
From R software do:
>install.packages(“bibliometrix”)
>library(bibliometrix)
>biblioshiny()
1. Used a Word VBA macro in Annex 3 to
change some field tag.
2. Use VBA excel code in Annex 3 to remove
duplicate references between Scopus and
WOS bibliography.
From R software do:
> write_csv (M1, “…/path/WOS.csv”)
> write_csv (M2, “…/path/Scopus.csv”)
M1: is the data frame including WOS’s
bibtex bibliography.
M2: is the data frame including Scopus’s
bibtex bibliography.
Path: is the file path I which you need to
store the WOS.csv and Scopus.csv.
In Excel, paste for example WOS.xlsx data to
Scopus.xlsx data.
Use VBA code to remove duplication in
Excel (see Annex 3).

Merging WOS and Scopus for bibliometric analysis
To merge the two databases retained in the inclusion step of
the PRISMA method, we propose the following four-step
procedure:
shown in Annex 2. The purpose of this step is to export both
WOS and Scopus databases with the same tag fields.
Second step: convert both WOS.bib and Scopus.bib
to “bibtex” files

To convert both WOS.bib and Scopus.bib to “bibtex” files,

First step: convert WOS and Scopus databases
to bibliography files
To adequately convert imported WOS and Scopus databases
references in Endnote to bibliography files, we make the
two following actions (see Table 1). First, we convert each
database separately from Endnote to “.bib” files (e.g., WOS.
bib and Scopus.bib). The “.bib” is a file format employed
to process references generally in connection to LaTeX
documents. To do this operation, we selected “BibTex
Export” library from Endnote style (see Annex 1). Second,
we changed the Endnote’s BibTex bibliography template as
we used Rstudio (or R) by loading the bibliometrix pack-
age, as Aria and Cuccurullo (2017) suggest. We could then
conduct bibliometric analyses for each bibtex file in Rstu-
dio, following Aria and Cuccurullo’s (2017) procedures and
codes in R. For non-coders, Aria and Cuccurullo (2017)
created the biblioshiny library, which makes bibliometric
analysis based on bibtex or Excel files easy. We transformed
the bibtex files for both the WOS and Scopus databases for
two reasons. While conducting bibliometric analyses using
bibtex files, errors are common, and their causes are unob-
servable. Excel files help with merging the two databases,
but before converting the bibtex files into Excel files, we
Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales…

Table 2  Main information Scopus WOS Merged

of sales force publications in
Scopus, WOS, and merged Documents 7540 5469 10,108
databases
Sources (journal article, conference proceeding) 1870 1072 2214
Keywords plus (ID) 26,236 13,913 29,432
Author keywords (DE) 25,049 13,850 28,445
Period 1912–2019 1991–2019 1912–2019
Average citations by documents 30.74 27.64 28.81
Authors 12,364 9117 15,855
Author appearances 19,896 14,939 26,965
Authors of single-authored documents 1092 591 1315
Authors of multi-authored documents 11,272 8526 14,540
Single-authored documents 1361 763 1727
Documents by author 0.61 0.6 0.638
Authors by document 1.64 1.67 1.57
Co-authors by documents 2.64 2.73 2.67
Collaboration index 1.82 1.81 1.73

advise making format changes to the bibtex files. These
changes helped us format our bibtex bibliography to avoid
errors in keywords frequencies and author influence.
Third step: Format the WOS and the Scopus bibtex files
to have the same tag fields
To format the WOS and the Scopus bibtex files to have the
same tag fields, we used a Word VBA macro to format the
WOS.bib and the Scopus.bib files. We employed regular
expressions (e.g., “regex”) to position author keywords (e.g.,
“Keywords”) on one line, separated by a colon. We also
extracted the tag fields “Cited-By” from the notes bibtex tag
fields and renamed some tag fields (e.g., “Times-Cited” to
“Times-Cited” and “Cited-By” to “Times-Cited”) to allow
recognition by the Bibliometrix package (Annex 3).
Fourth step: merge the two databases in R or Rstudio
and remove duplicates
The final step is to merge the two databases in R or Rstu-
dio and remove the duplicate bibliography. To control this
process, we convert the WOS.bib and the Scopus.bib files
to WOS.xlsx and Scopus.xlsx, respectively, in Rstudio. We
used the following command: write_csv (M, “…/path/WOS.
csv”). Then, copy one file to the other manually (e.g., WOS.
xlsx to Scopus.xlsx). To remove duplicates, sort the database
based on the Title (“TI”) tag file. Use VBA code to remove
duplicates (Annex 3). We deleted 2901 duplicates, so the
merged database included 10,108 publications. The merged
Excel file can then be used to analyze the merged database
using the biblioshiny package in Rstudio. If we wanted to
analyze the file in VOSviewer, we would have had to convert
it to a csv file in Excel.
Results of bibliometric analysis
To conduct sales force bibliometric analysis on the WOS,
Scopus, and merged databases, we considered eight analysis
types—data information, research growth, most productive
authors, most relevant source, most influential papers and
authors, most productive country, greatest keyword fre-
quency and occurrences, and co-country collaborations.
Information about the data
Table 2 shows information on publications identified in the
Scopus, WOS, and merged databases. The number of pub-
lications retrieved from Scopus was 37% larger than those
from WOS. The merged database was also unequal regarding
the sum of the Scopus and WOS databases because 22% of
the records were duplicate publications. Table 2 shows that
papers in WOS began from 1991, whereas Scopus started
from 1912. The number of author keywords and Keyword
plus was nearly double in Scopus, and author appearances
were lower in WOS than in Scopus (12 364 versus 9 117).
However, the number of authors by document (1.67 versus
1.64) and of co-authors by document (2.73 versus 2.64) were
slightly greater in WOS. The collaboration index was nearly
equal between the two databases (1.81 versus 1.829), but
was greater than in the merged database (1.73).
Research growth
Figure 1 illustrates the tendency of publications in the Sco-
pus, WOS, and merged databases for the period from 1912
to 2018. For the merged databases (here after “MDB”), the
growth tendency declined between 2009 and 2011. How-
ever, after 2011, the number of publications grew globally
 S. Echchakoui

Table 3  Most productive authors in Scopus, WOS, and merged databases

Scopus WOS Merged
Authors # Articles h-index Authors # Articles h-index Authors # Articles h-index

Laporte G 77 35 Laporte G 100 40 Laporte G 125 45

Dubinsky AJ 53 22 Gendreau M 56 32 Dubinsky AJ 63 22
Wang Y 38 11 Ahearne M 28 22 Gendreau M 59 34
Ahearne M 31 25 Cordeau JF 24 17 Wang Y 39 9
Jaramillo F 31 22 Salazar Gonzalez JJ 22 12 Boles JS 35 23
Boles Js 29 21 Dubinsky AJ 21 11 Sharma A 35 20
Cravens DW 29 20 Letchford AN 21 11 Ahearne M 34 24
Chonko LB 28 19 Wang Y 21 6 Jaramillo F 33 22
Marshall GW 26 17 Woeginger GJ 21 10 Cravens DW 32 20
Ingram Tn 24 16 Fischetti M 20 16 Chonko LB 31 19
Sharma A 24 20 Sharma A 20 14 Marshall GW 31 17
Wang X 24 8 Toth P 20 14 Ingram TN 30 19
Woeginger GJ 24 13 Deineko VG 19 8 Toth P 30 18
Evans Kr 23 17 Gouveia L 19 10 Woeginger GJ 29 12
Gendreau M 23 16 Gutin G 19 10 Cordeau JF 27 20
Li J 23 9 Rapp A 19 13 Evans KR 27 17
Sager JK 23 18 Boles Js 18 12 Fischetti M 26 18
Jones E 22 18 Glover F 18 13 Moncrief WC 26 15
Moncrief WC 22 15 Agnihotri R 17 8 Pullins EB 25 13
Rapp A 22 18 Homburg C 17 12 Rapp A 25 19

#: number

until 2018. With respect to MDB, the growth of the Scopus
publications was the same until 2014. After this date, the
number of publications’ tendency of the Scopus decline in
2015 and grew in 2016, and finally decrease until 2018. For
the WOS database, the tendency of publication declines
weakly in 2011 with respect to MDB. It also increased less
than MDB between 2009 and 2011. Finally, the WOS data-
base increased at a faster rate than MDB after 2012. Con-
sequently, following these results, we can argue that in the
case of the sales force literature, the tendency of publications
in Scopus and WOS databases have some similarities and
disparities with respect to MDB. We do not include 2019
because that year has not concluded. With respect to the
sales force literature, based on Fig. 1, we can claim that the
scholar’s interest in this field of research has globally grown
in time.
Most productive authors
Table 3 shows the 20 most productive authors in the Sco-
pus, WOS, and MDB, a classification based on the number
of publications and the h-index. The first criteria ranking
is a number of publications, but if two or more authors
have the same number of publications, the second crite-
rion is the h-index. About MDB, Table 3 illustrates that
three authors are the most productive scholars in the sales
force literature between 1912 and 2019. These authors are,
respectively, Laporte G (125 publications, h-index = 45),
Dubinsky AJ (65 publications, h-index = 22), and Gend-
reau M (59 publications, h-index = 34). Regarding MDB,
Laporte G is also the most productive author in both
Scopus and WOS databases (Scopus: 77 publications,
h-index = 35; WOS: 100 publications, h-index = 40).
However, while Dubinsky AJ has also the second posi-
tion in Scopus (53 publications, h-index = 22), he holds
the sixth position in WOS (21 publications, h-index = 11).
On the other hand, Gendreau M who is the third contribu-
tor author in MDB, takes second place in WOS with 56
publications and an h-index of 32, but only the fifteen
position in Scopus (23 publications, h-index = 19). These
findings demonstrate that results from the merged file are
not influenced only by Scopus even though it is larger, but
also by WOS.
Figure 2 shows that the most consistently productive
author in MDB between the 1912 and 2019 in the sales force
literature is Laporte G, followed equally by Dubinsky AJ and
Cravens DW (see Fig. 2a). With respect to MDB, Laporte
G has the same place as Dubinsky AJ and Cravens DW in
the Scopus database (see Fig. 2b). About WOS database
(see Fig. 2c), Laporte G also has the first place, Wang Y the
second, and the third position is shared between two authors
Dubinsky AJ and Gendreau M.
Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales…

Fig. 2  Top authors production over time in Scopus, WOS, and merged databases. a Merged database. b Scopus database. c WOS database.

According to our comparison between MDB and Sco-
pus as well as between MDB and WOS, we argue that
there is a similarity and also differences between MDB and
Scopus, as well among MDM and WOS. The similarity is
mainly on the first consistently productive author (Laporte
G), but the differences concern the second and the third
consistently productive authors.
Based on our finding in MDB, we can claim that the most
productive scholars in the sales force literature between 1912
and 2019 are , respectively, Laporte G, Dubinsky AJ, and
 S. Echchakoui

Table 4  Most relevant source in Scopus, WOS, and merged databases

Scopus WOS Merged
Sources # Articles Sources # Articles Sources # Articles

Journal of Personal Selling and 564 European Journal of Operational 351 Journal of Personal Selling and 588
Sales Management ­Researcha Sales Management
European Journal of Operational 278 Industrial Marketing Management 208 European Journal of Operational 437
­Researcha Research
Industrial Marketing Management 200 Computers and Operations 199 Industrial Marketing Management 274
Research
Computers and Operations 156 Journal of Business Research 115 Computers and Operations 257
Research Research
Journal of Business Research 127 Discrete Applied ­Mathematicsa 95 Journal of Business Research 159
Journal of Business and Industrial 114 Journal of Business and Industrial 95 Journal of Business and Industrial 145
Marketing Marketing Marketing
Journal of the Academy of Market- 114 Journal of the Operational 93 Journal of the Academy of Market- 137
ing Science Research Society ing Science
Operations Research Letters 101 Journal of the Academy of Market- 88 Journal of the Operational 137
ing Science Research Society
Discrete Applied Mathematics 92 Networks 85 Discrete Applied Mathematics 131
Journal of the Operational 90 Journal of Marketing 80 Operations Research Letters 124
Research Society
Networks 81 Transportation Science 76 Mathematical Programming 121
Mathematical Programming 72 Mathematical Programming 73 Networks 118
Journal of Applied Psychology 65 Journal of Personal Selling and 70 Journal of Business Ethics 90
Sales Management
International Journal of Production 62 Journal of Business Ethics 69 Transportation Science 88
Research
Expert Systems with Applications 60 Operations Research Letters 68 International Journal of Production 84
Research
Journal of Business Ethics 54 Expert Systems with Applications 54 Journal of Marketing 82
Applied Soft Computing Journal 50 Annals of Operations Research 53 Annals of Operations Research 79
Annals of Operations Research 49 Computers and Industrial Engi- 48 Expert Systems with Applications 77
neering
Information Processing Letters 48 Journal of Heuristics 47 Operations Research 74
Operations Research 48 Applied Soft Computing Journal 46 Journal of Applied Psychology 70

Wagner 2015). A Practical Comparison of Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection (https​://ubir.buffa​lo.edu/xmlui​/handl​e/10477​/38568​)
a
Table 4 shows that WOS and Scopus include different article counts for the same journal. Two factors can explain these differences. First, pub-
lications from Scopus database were available between 1912 and 2019, whereas these from WOS were between 1991 and 2019. This point can
probably explain why some journals (e.g., Journal of Personal Selling) have a greater number of papers in Scopus database. Second, it is well
known that Scopus has some weakness as author clustering problem, institution clustering problem, and random missing articles (Wagner 2015).
So, these reasons can explain why some journal (notably: European Journal of Operational Research, Computers and Operations Research, Jour-
nal of Business Ethics) have more number in WOS than Scopus. Indeed, in addition to the missing papers in Scopus, in the PRISMA procedure
steps, we delete all papers that did not have identified authors or institutions

Gendreau M. In addition, the most consistently productive
author in the sales force literature is Laporte G, followed
equally by Dubinsky AJ, and Cravens DW.
Most relevant sources
Results in Table 4 show that the most relevant source
in MDB is the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, with 588 articles, followed, respectively,
by the European Journal of Operational Research (437
publications) and the Industrial Marketing Management
(274 publications). With respect to MDB, the most rel-
evant source in Scopus is the same with similar orders.
However, in the WOS database, the Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management only holds thirteenth place
(70 publications), but the Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment has a better place (second) with 208 publications.
Likewise, European Journal of Operational Research has
also a first place (351 publications) instead the second
position in MDB.
Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales…
The above results show that there is a similarity between
MDB and Scopus databases about the most relevant sources.
Nevertheless, there is a similarity and difference between
MDB and WOS database. The similarity is about the Euro-
pean Journal of Operational Research and the Industrial
Marketing Management. These journals are classed between
the most third influential sources in the sales force literature
in both MDB and WOS databases. However, the biggest
difference concerns the position of the Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management (first in MDB versus thirteen
in WOS).
Based on the merged database, we can argue that the
sales force literature was influenced by the three following
journals: (1) Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Manage-
ment, (2) European Journal of Operational Research, and (3)
Industrial Marketing Management.
Most influential papers and authors
Table 5 shows the most influential papers in Scopus, WOS,
and the MDB from 1912 to June 2019. We constructed the
list based on publications with the greatest number of cita-
tions (Knoke and Yang 2008; Strozzia et al. 2017). Dorigo
et al. (1996), titled “Ant system: Optimization by a colony
of cooperating agents,” published in IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics has the most citation in the
MDB databases at 5269. The second and the third papers
with the most citations in the MDB are, respectively, Dorigo
and Gambardella (1997), “Ant colonies for the traveling
salesman problem,” in Biosystems with 5 209 citations, and
Hopfield and Tank (1985), ““Neural” computation of deci-
sions in optimization problems,” in Biological Cybernetics
(3 576 citations). These most influential papers and authors
are the same between MDB and Scopus databases. Regard-
ing the WOS database, the first and the second positions are
similar to MDB, but the third place is taken by Xu (2005),
“Survey of clustering algorithms,” IEEE Transactions on
Neural Networks. Therefore, there is a similarity between
MDB and Scopus databases about the most influential
papers and authors. Nevertheless, there is only a difference
in the third position between MDB and WOS database.
Based on the MDB, we may claim that the three most
influential papers with authors in the sales force research
during 1912–2019 were, respectively, (1) “Dorigo et al.
(1996). Ant system: Optimization by a colony of cooperat-
ing agents IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cyber-
netic” with 5269 citations, (2) “Dorigo and Gambardella
(1997). Ant colonies for the traveling salesman problem.
Biosystems” with 5209 citations, and (3) “Hopfield and Tank
(1985). “Neural” computation of decisions in optimization
problems. Biological Cybernetics” with 3576 citations.
Only one paper, Podsakoff et al. (2000), which assesses
sales force management, is ranked in WOS. All other papers
study the traveling salesperson problem and optimization.
We, thus, argue that sales force literature is influenced
greatly by research that assesses the latter subject.
Most productive country
Analysis of the most productive countries was based on two
indices—an author’s affiliated country (Table 6) and total
citations by country (Table 7). About MDB, Table 6 shows
that the USA has the greatest number of author affiliations (2
636). China and Canada hold the second and third positions
(respectively 713 and 431). By comparison to MDB, Table 5
reveals that these three most productive countries (the USA,
China and Canada) are also the most productive countries in
both Scopus and WOS databases. However, there are some
differences if we consider the ten most productive countries.
Indeed, for example, The United Kingdom holds the fourth
position in MDB (271 authors) but holds sixth place in WOS
with 167 author affiliations. Likewise, Japan has the sixth
place in the MDB, but the seventh position in the Scopus
database.
Table 7 shows the top ten cited countries in sales force
literature from 1912 to June 2019. TheUSA is the most cited
country in MDB with 98,174 citations, followed consecu-
tively by Canada (16,676 citations) and Italy (12,315 cita-
tions). With respect to MDB, the most cited in the sales
force literature countries in the WOS database are the same.
However, there are two differences between MDB and Sco-
pus database. Indeed, despite the most cited country in the
two databases being the USA (77 438 citations in Scopus),
the second position in Scopus is Belgium with 16,072 cita-
tions, whereas Canada, which has the second position in
MDB, holds the fourth position in Scopus with 7020 cita-
tions. In addition, the third most cited country in the Scopus
is Germany (7755 citations). However, Italy which holds the
third position in MDB falls to the ninth place in Scopus at
4240 citations.
Drawing on the merged database (see Tables 6 and 7), we
claim that the most productive countries in the sales force
research between 1912 and 2019 with respect to the cor-
responding author’s countries were successively: the USA,
China, and Canada. However, with respect to the total cita-
tions by country, the three most influential countries were
the following: USA, Canada, and Italy.
Most frequent words
We analyze both keyword frequency and occurrences.
Table 8 shows the 20 most relevant keywords in the three
databases for sales force literature from 1912 to June 2019.
The first most frequency word is “The traveling salesper-
son problem” in MDB with 4578 occurrences. The second
most frequency word is “Business and economic” (2081
 S. Echchakoui

Table 5  Most influential papers in Scopus, WOS, and merged databases

Authors Title Source # Citations

Merged
Dorigo et al. (1996) Ant system: Optimization by a colony of coop- IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and 5269
erating agents Cybernetic
Dorigo and Gambardella (1997) Ant colonies for the traveling salesman prob- Biosystems 5209
lem
Hopfield and Tank (1985) “Neural” computation of decisions in optimiza- Biological Cybernetics 3576
tion problems
Geem et al. (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: Har- Simulation 3096
mony search
Dorigo and Gambardella (1997) Ant colonies for the traveling salesman prob- Biosystems 2542
lem
Xu (2005) Survey of clustering algorithms IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 2355
Černý (1985) Thermodynamical approach to the traveling Journal of Optimization Theory and Applica- 1962
salesman problem: An efficient simulation tions
algorithm
Podsakoff et al. (2000) Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical Journal of Management 1837
review of the theoretical and empirical litera-
ture and suggestions for future research
Mladenović and Hansen (1997) Variable neighborhood search Computers and Operations Research 1528
Dorigo et al. (1999) Ant algorithms for discrete optimization Artificial Life 1396
Scopus
Dorigo et al. (1996) Ant system: Optimization by a colony of coop- IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and 5269
erating agents Cybernetic
Dorigo and Gambardella (1997) Ant colonies for the traveling salesman prob- Biosystems 5209
lem
Hopfield and
Tank (1985) “Neural” computation of decisions in optimiza- Biological Cybernetics 3576
tion problems
Geem et al. (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: Har- Simulation 3096
mony search
Sttzle and Hoss (2000) Max–Min ant system Future Generation Computer Systems 2013
Mladenović and Hansen (1997) Variable neighborhood search Computers and Operations Research 1965
Černý (1985) Thermodynamical approach to the traveling Journal of Optimization Theory and Applica- 1962
salesman problem: An efficient simulation tions
algorithm
Dorigo et al. (1999) Ant algorithms for discrete optimization Artificial Life 1286
Reinelt (1991) The traveling salesman computational solu- Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1226
tions for TSP applications
Kirkpatrick (1984) Optimization by simulated annealing—quanti- Journal of Statistical Physics 1168
tative studies
WOS
Dorigo et al. (1996) Ant system: Optimization by a colony of coop- IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and 5269
erating agents Cybernetic
Dorigo and Gambardella (1997) Ant colonies for the traveling salesman prob- Biosystems 2542
lem
Xu (2005) Survey of clustering algorithms IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 2355
Podsakoff et al. (2000) Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical Journal of Management 1837
review of the theoretical and empirical litera-
ture and suggestions for future research
Mladenović and Hansen (1997) Variable neighborhood search Computers and Operations Research 1528
Dorigo et al. (1999) Ant algorithms for discrete optimization Artificial Life 1396
Sttzle and Hoss (2000) Max–Min ant system Future Generation Computer Systems 1345
Blum and Roli (2003) Metaheuristics in combinatorial optimization: Acm Computing Surveys 1280
Overview and conceptual comparison
Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales…

Table 5  (continued)
Authors Title Source # Citations
Aurenhammer (1991) Voronoi diagrams: A survey of a fundamental Computing Surveys 1131
geometric data structure

Table 6  Corresponding author’s Scopus WOS Merged

countries in Scopus, WOS, and
merged databases Country # Articles Country # Articles Country # Articles

USA 2 175 USA 1 128 USA 2 636

China 493 China 407 China 713
Canada 284 Canada 274 Canada 431
United Kingdom 271 Germany 242 United Kingdom 357
Germany 235 Japan 172 Germany 356
France 210 United Kingdom 167 Japan 292
Japan 196 France 166 France 287
Australia 176 Italy 157 Taiwan 221
India 160 Taiwan 137 Italy 210
Taiwan 135 Spain 116 India 207

Table 7  Total Citations by Scopus WOS Merged

country in Scopus, WOS, and
merged databases Country # Citations Country # Citations Country # Citations

USA 77 438 USA 4 4530 USA 98 174

Belgium 16 072 Canada 13 137 Canada 16 676
Germany 7 755 Italy 9 842 Italy 12 315
Canada 7 020 Belgium 5 714 Belgium 12 047
United Kingdom 6 962 China 5 292 Germany 9 879
France 6 221 Germany 5 049 United Kingdom 9 285
Australia 4 909 France 4 562 France 7 911
Korea 4 788 United Kingdom 4 470 Netherlands 5 941
Italy 4 240 Netherlands 3 739 Korea 5 403
Japan 3 312 Spain 2 715 Australia 4 949

occurrences) and the is and “Algorithm” (1732 occurrences).
The first most frequency word in Scopus and WOS is also
“The traveling salesperson problem” words with 3420 fre-
quencies and 3035 frequencies for Scopus and WOS, respec-
tively. However, the second and the third frequency words
differ between MDB and Scopus databases. In this latter,
the second most frequency word is “Algorithm” with 1090
occurrences, and the third most frequency word is “optimi-
zation” (1007 occurrences). With respect to WOS database,
the second most frequency words “Business and economic”
is the same as MDB. Nevertheless, the third most frequency
word is “Computer science”1616 occurrences instead of
Algorithm in the case of MDB. Nevertheless, Computer sci-
ence is in the third position with 1616 occurrences instead
of Algorithm in the case of MDB.
Figure 3a shows the classification of sales force literature
based on author keywords extracted from MDB, in which
four clusters are distinguishable. The first cluster (green;
traveling salesperson problem) represents research into solv-
ing how to choose the shortest route for a salesperson’s visits
across cities. In this cluster are nodes such as scheduling,
mathematical model, graph theory, and optimization. The
second cluster (blue; operations research and management
nodes) focuses on transportation and delivery, and contains
nodes such as time, delivery problems, and vehicle routine
problems. Business and economics is the largest node in the
third cluster (red), which contains sales force management
themes such as salesperson performance, control systems,
and buyer–seller relationships. The fourth cluster includes
three small nodes—human, male, and female—and focuses
on differences between males and females in sales forces.
Figure 3b shows that author keywords in Scopus sepa-
rate into four clusters. Each cluster comprises nodes (cir-
cles) with similar colors, and includes links or relationships
 S. Echchakoui

Table 8  Most frequency words in Scopus, WOS, and merged databases

Scopus WOS Merged
Keyword Occurrences Keyword Occurrences Keyword Occurrences

Traveling salesperson problem 3420 Traveling salesperson problem 3035 Traveling salesperson problem 4578
Algorithm 1090 Business and economic 2081 Business and economic 2081
Optimization 1007 Computer science 1616 Algorithm 1732
Heuristic algorithm 777 Operation research and manage- 1607 Operation research and manage- 1665
ment ment
Combinatorial optimization 664 Algorithm 1201 Computer science 1620
Genetic algorithm 469 Engineering 937 Optimization 1226
Computational complexity 366 Mathematic 784 Mathematic model 1093
Human 307 Salesperson 741 Engineering 938
Scheduling 300 Optimization 659 Salesperson 914
Graph theory 299 Performance 577 Heuristic method 821
Integer programming 298 Model 530 Genetic algorithm 642
Salesperson 296 Vehicle routing problem 496 Performance 638
Vehicle routing problem 280 Heuristic algorithm 468 Vehicle routing problem 611
Mathematical model 274 Behavior 407 Model 581
Approximation algorithm 242 Genetic algorithm 398 Combinatorial optimization 521
Simulated annealing 227 System 279 Scheduling problem 382
Computer simulation 221 Search 276 Behavior 374
Ant colony optimization 208 Combinatorial optimization 272 Approximation algorithm 320
Operation research 201 Problem 268 Transportation 304
Artificial intelligence 200 Salesperson performance 260 Sales 293

(lines) between nodes. The first cluster (yellow) includes
the most frequent keyword, traveling salesperson problem,
as the dominant node. Many other keywords constitute this
cluster, such as integer programming, combinatorial experi-
ment, and vehicle routing problem. Heuristic algorithm is
the largest node in the second cluster (green), which includes
other nodes such as evolutionary algorithm, genetic algo-
rithm, and learning algorithm. The third cluster (red) con-
tains many small nodes such as human, neural network, con-
trol study, and computer simulation. The last cluster (blue)
includes the algorithm’s keyword as the largest node, and
includes nodes such as approximation algorithm, mathemati-
cal model, and constraint theory.
For WOS, Fig. 3c shows that sales force literature can
be divided in two clusters based on author keywords. The
first cluster (green) contains the traveling salesperson prob-
lem as the dominant node, and includes other nodes such
as computer science, operations research and management,
and vehicle routing problem. Business and economics is
the largest node in the second cluster (red), which includes
many other nodes such as model, salesperson performance,
strategy, and job satisfaction. These nodes primarily concern
sales force management.
Based on the above analysis, we can argue that “Trave-
ling salesperson problem’ is the most influential keyword
in the sales force literature between 1912 and 2019. The
occurrence of this keyword in the merged database is 4578.
This keyword is also the main node of the big cluster that
shape the research in the sales force (see Fig. 3a).
Co‑country collaboration
The co-country collaboration keyword was assessed using
VOSviewer. Three sub-figures are shown in Fig. 4, each of
which represents the three databases. The figures show that
the merged database had the greatest number of clusters (9),
followed by Scopus (7) and WOS (4). The United States
is the largest node in the three databases, especially in the
MDB and Scopus database. Some countries are related in
MDB, but not in other databases. For example, in MDB Ger-
many and Japan belong to the same cluster (red), in which
Canada has the largest node. However, in Scopus, Germany
and Japan do not collaborate on sales force research because
each belongs to a different cluster (e.g., pink for Germany
and red for Japan). In addition, in WOS, Germany belongs
to the same cluster as the United States (red) but does not
relate to Japan (green).
Figure 4a shows that the merged database has nine clus-
ters. The first (green) includes Canada, Netherlands, Ger-
many, and Japan, the second (blue) The United States as
the largest node, in Australia, Greece, and Egypt, the third
(red) China, India, Sweden, and others, the fourth (yellow)
Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales…

Fig. 3  Keyword Co-occurrences in Scopus, WOS, and merged databases. a Merged database. b Scopus database. c WOS database.
 S. Echchakoui

Fig. 4  Co-countries collaboration in Scopus, WOS, and merged databases. a Merged database. b Scopus database.c WOS database.
Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales…
Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Indonesia, the fifth (light blue)
South Africa, and New Zealand, the sixth (purple) Bel-
gium, Norway, and Chile, the seventh (pink) South Korea,
the eighth (brown) Finland, and the ninth (orange) Spain.
Figure 4b shows that Scopus contains seven clusters. The
first (green) includes the United States, the Netherlands, and
Finland, the second one (blue) France, United Kingdom, and
Sweden, the third (red) China, Japan, Turkey, and Russia,
which replaces the Russian Federation, the fourth (yellow)
Spain and Norway, the fifth (pink) Hong Kong, Germany,
Switzerland, and India, the sixth (orange) Taiwan and China,
and the seventh (brown) only Greece.
Figure 4c shows that WOS contains four clusters. The
first (red) includes the United States, Germany, Russia, and
France, the second (blue) Canada and others such as The
United Kingdom and South Korea, the third (green) Japan,
Switzerland, Singapore, and others, and the fourth (yellow)
Spain and Greece.
Globally, we can argue that the USA is the most influ-
ential country for research in the sales force literature. The
USA’s researchers collaborate with some scholars belong-
ing to other countries like Greece, Australia and Egypt (see
Fig. 4a).
General discussion
The first objective of this study is to show how to make
MDB by combining and removing duplicate publications
from Scopus and WOS databases. To show the importance
of MDB to better make a bibliometric analysis, we con-
sidered the sales force literature between 1912 and 2019.
Specifically, we make a bibliometric analysis comparison
between MDB and Scopus, as well as among MDB and
WOS. Table 9 summarizes similarities and differences of
these comparisons based on ten analysis types of bibliomet-
ric analysis in the case of the sales force literature between
1912 and 2019. These analyses types are: (1) research
growth, (2) most three productive authors, (3) most three
consistently productive authors, (4) most three relevant
sources, (5) most three influential papers and authors, (6)
most three corresponding author’s countries, (7) most three
cited countries, (8) most three frequent words, (9) most three
keyword co-occurrences clusters, and (10) most three co-
countries collaboration clusters. We focused only on the
most three elements for two reasons. First, these elements
are the most important ranked positions. Second, our objec-
tive is only to show there is some differences between MDB
and both Scopus and WOS databases.
Table 9 illustrates that there are many differences in
bibliometric analysis results between MDB and Scopus
databases. Specifically, among ten analysis, there is seven
(7/10 = 70%) disparities between these databases (MDB and
Scopus). For example, the most three co-country collabora-
tion clusters in MDB are: (1) cluster 1 including Canada,
Netherlands, Germany, and Japan, (2) cluster 2 containing
United States, Australia, Greece, and Egypt, and (3) cluster
3 incorporating China, India, Sweden, and others. In the
case of Scopus database, these three clusters are: (1) cluster
1 including United States, the Netherlands, and Finland, (2)
cluster 2 containing France, United Kingdom, and Sweden,
and (3) cluster 3 covering China, Japan, Turkey, and Russia.
Table 9 also shows that there are several disparities in the
bibliometric analysis results between MDB and WOS data-
bases. Explicitly, there is an eight in ten disparities (80%)
between these databases (MDB and WOS). For example,
for the most three keyword co-occurrence clusters, analysis
shows three clusters in MDB (1. Traveling salesperson prob-
lem, 2. Operations research and management, 3. Business
and economics). However, in the case of WOS database, our
analysis reveals only two clusters (1. Traveling salesperson
problem, 2. Business and economics).
The third objective was to conduct a bibliometric analy-
sis of sales force literature, which served to illustrate the
first and second objectives and provide an overview of the
state and research trajectories of knowledge in sales force
literature. Regarding this last point, our results reveal (see
Table 9) that the research in sales force continue to grow;
the most three productive authors are Laporte G, Dubinsky
AJ, and Gendreau M; the most three consistently productive
authors are Laporte G, Dubinsky AJ, and Cravens DW; the
most three relevant sources are Journal of Personal Selling
and Sales Management, European Journal of Operational
Research, and Industrial Marketing Management; the most
three influential papers and authors are Dorigo et al. (1996),
Dorigo and Gambardella (1997), and Hopfield and Tank
(1985); the most three corresponding author’s countries
are the United States, China, and Canada; the most three
cited countries are the United States, Canada, and Italy; the
most three frequent words are Traveling salesperson prob-
lem, Business and economic, and Algorithm; the most three
Keyword co-occurrence clusters are Traveling salesperson
problem, Operations research and management, and Busi-
ness and economics; the most three co-country collaboration
clusters are (1) Canada, Netherlands, Germany, and Japan,
(2) the United States, Australia, Greece, and Egypt, and (3)
China, India, Sweden, and others.
Based in our results and objectives, we discuss in the fol-
lowing two elements: (1) Contribution to the bibliometric
analysis, and (2) contributions to the sales force field.
Contribution to the bibliometric analysis
Bibliometric analyses are mainly performed by retrieving
publications from WOS database or from Scopus databases.
Only, few scholars use both of them without indicating how
 S. Echchakoui

Table 9  Synthesis of most similarities and differences between MDB and Scopus and between MDB and WOS
Analysis types MDB versus Scopus MDB versus WOS
Similarity Difference Similarity Difference

Research growth Tendency between 1912 Tendency between 2014 Tendency between 1912 Tendency between 2013 and
and 2014 and 2018. and 2013. 2018.
Most three productive First: Laporte G Third: First: Laporte G Second:
authors Second: Dubinsky AJ. MDB: Gendreau M. MDB: Dubinsky AJ.
Scopus: Wang Y. WOS: Gendreau M.
Third:
MDB: Gendreau.
WOS: Ahearne M.
Most three consistently Laporte G, Dubinsky AJ Laporte G has the: First: Laporte G Second:
productive authors and Cravens DW are First position in MDB. MDB: Dubinsky AJ and
the most consistently Same position as Dubinsky Cravens DW in MDB.
productive authors. AJ and Cravens DW. WOS: Wang Y.
Dubinsky AJ and Cravens Third author:
DW are the most have WOS: Gendreau M and
same position. Dubinsky AJ.
Most three relevant sources First: Journal of Personal First:
Selling and Sales Man- MDB: Journal of Personal
agement. Selling and Sales Manage-
Second: European Journal ment.
of Operational Research. WOS: European Journal of
Third: Industrial Market- Operational Research.
ing Management Second:
MDB: European Journal of
Operational Research.
WOS: Industrial Marketing
Management.
Third:
MDB: Industrial Marketing
Management.
WOS: Computers and
Operations Research.
Most three influential First: Dorigo et al. (1996). First: Dorigo et al. (1996). Third:
papers and authors Second: Dorigo and Gam- Second: Dorigo and Gam- MDB: Hopfield and Tank
bardella (1997). bardella (1997) (1985).
Third: Hopfield and Tank WOS: Xu (2005).
(1985).
Most three corresponding First: United States. First: United States.
author’s countries Second: China. Second: China.
Third: Canada. Third: Canada
Most three cited countries First: United States. Second: First: United States.
MDB: Canada. Second: Canada.
Scopus: Belgium. Third: Italy
Third:
MDB: Italy.
Scopus: Germany
Most three frequent words First: Traveling salesper- Second: First: Traveling salesper- Third:
son problem MDB: Business and son problem. MDB: Algorithm.
economic Second: Business and WOS: Computer science.
Scopus: Algorithm. economic.
Third:
MDB: Algorithm.
Scopus: Optimization.
Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales…

Table 9  (continued)
Analysis types MDB versus Scopus MDB versus WOS
Similarity Difference Similarity Difference

Most three Keyword co- First: Traveling salesper-
occurrences clusters
Most three co-countries
collaboration clusters
Second: First: Traveling salesper- Second:
son problem. MDB: Operations research son problem. MDB: Operations research
and management. and management.
Scopus: Heuristic algo- Scopus: Business and eco-
rithm. nomics.
Third: Third:
MDB: Business and eco- MDB: Business and eco-
nomics. nomics.
Scopus: many small nodes Scopus: no class
as human and neural
network.
First: First:
MDB: Canada, Nether- MDB: Canada, Netherlands,
lands, Germany, and Germany, and Japan.
Japan. Scopus: United States, Ger-
Scopus: United States, many, Russia, and France.
Netherlands, and Fin- Second:
land. MDB: United States, Aus-
Second: tralia, Greece, and Egypt.
MDB: United States, Scopus: Canada and others
Australia, Greece, and such as The United King-
Egypt. dom and South Korea.
Scopus: France, United Third:
Kingdom, and Sweden. MDB: China, India, Swe-
Third: den, and others.
MDB: China, India, Swe- Scopus: Japan, Switzerland,
den, and others. Singapore, and others.
Scopus: China, Japan,
Turkey, and Russia.

MDB merged database

to merge these two databases. To prevail Scopus or WOS
database, several scholars indicated the advantage of each
database. For example, many authors (e.g., Goodman and
Deis 2007; Chirici 2012; Zyoud et al. 2017) claimed that
WOS database is more reliable and offer a varied range
of information. In this study, we retrieved initially 17 365
publications from Scopus and 5 469 publications from
WOS. After using PRISMA method, we retain only 7 540
(43.4% = 7 540/17 365) suitable publications from Scopus
and 5 469 (47.8%) from WOS database. This result illus-
trates that WOS database has slightly more precise searches
that Scopus database in the case of the sales force literature.
Other authors (e.g., Mingers and Lipitakis 2010; Sánchez
et al. 2017) argued that Scopus has a large thematic cov-
erage and number of articles. In this regard, our research
confirms this claim by showing that the number of publica-
tions retrieved from Scopus on sales force literature is 37%
greater than the number of publications extracted from WOS
(Table 2). On the other hand, some scholars stated a correla-
tion between the two databases. For example, Sánchez et al.
(2017) reported correlations of 23% in the social sciences,
32% in health sciences, and 30% in physical sciences. In the
case of sales force literature, our results showed this correla-
tion is 22%, which is close to the 23% in the social sciences
that Sánchez et al. (2017) report.
By showing that both Scopus and WOS database results
are different from MDB in the case of the sales force lit-
erature, this research makes a notable contribution to the
bibliometric analysis literature. Specifically, we claim that
the comparison researches between Scopus and WOS data-
bases is not productive because none of them are similar to
the MDB. Indeed, by considering only the three most ranked
positions for ten analysis types, we found 70% dissimilarities
between MDB and Scopus as well as 80% dissimilarities
between MDB and WOS database. So, we encourage schol-
ars not only to make comparison between Scopus and WOS
databases, but to enhance how to effectively make MDB.
Second, this study shows a detailed procedure of how to
perform MDB. This procedure is based on four steps: (1)
convert WOS and Scopus databases to bibliography files, (2)
convert both WOS.bib and Scopus.bib to “bibtex” files, (3)
format the WOS and the Scopus bibtex files to have the same
tag fields, and (4) merge the two databases in R or Rstudio
and remove duplicates. To effectively make the first and the

second steps, we showed how to perform these operations
in Endnote (see Annex 1). We also propose VBA macro to
perform the third step (format both WOS.bib and Scopus.
bib files). Finally, we give a VBA macro to delete duplicate
publications from WOS and Scopus databases. So, by speci-
fying these steps and providing information to perm them,
this extends bibliometric analysis research by helping schol-
ars to easily make bibliometric analysis based on the MDB.
Contributions to the sales force field
According to Bush and Grant (1994), it is important to
assess the literature regularly as salesforce to detect topics
and trends that reflect the state of knowledge. However, few
bibliometric researches on sales force literature have been
performed. These studies (e.g., Bush and Grant 1991, 1994;
Leigh et al. 2001; Plouffe et al. 2008; Richards et al. 2010;
Schrock et al. 2016; Williams and Plouffe 2007) consid-
ered selected articles mainly from sales force management
literature. For example, Williams and Plouffe (2007) con-
sidered 15 journals (ex., journals like Journal of Marketing,
Journal of Marketing research, Journal of Personal selling
and sales management, and Industrial Marketing Industrial
Marketing Management) covering 1012 articles published
between 1983 and 2002. In the period of 2003–2007, Rich-
ards et al. (2010) studied 19 journals including 388 sales
articles focusing on sales management. Schrock et al. (2016)
covered the period 1980–2015 and considered 721 articles
published only in the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management. So, to extend these researchers, this study
makes at least two contributions. First, we cover select arti-
cles from not only sales management literature, but we used
large keywords (ex., sales force, salespeople) to retrieve all
publications interested in the sales force issues. Our results
show that effectively a large body of research and journals
(ex., European Journal of Operational Research, Comput-
ers and Operations Research) cover Traveling salesperson
problem topic. Despite the importance of this topic and the
method (ex., optimization, genetic algorithms) used to solve
this problem, this is not considered in the previous biblio-
metric analysis. This gap is surprising because a traveling
salesman is considered by some historical scholars in sales
force research as a class of salespeople. For example, Wit-
kowski (2012) highlighted that Sheldon (1911) considered
traveling salesmen as a category of sales force. In addition,
concerning the roles of the sales force in the promotion’
plan, Beard, (2015) cited the role of the traveling men, high-
lighted by Calkins (1915). In his description of this role,
Calkins (1915) used “the manufacturer’s traveling men” as
a type of salesman. Specifically, in his response to how the
promotion’s plan affects salespersons, Calkins (1915) stated
S. Echchakoui
“How does it1 affect the manufacturer’s traveling men? Not
only must they and their work be considered in the plan,
but the plan, but the plan must first be sold to them. This is
accomplished by salesmen’s convention” (p. 175).
Second, drawing on our results, notably on Keyword Co-
occurrences in MDB (see Fig. 3a), we can argue that the
sales force literature can be classified on three important
streams: (1) Travel sales salesman solution (ex., artificial
intelligence, neural network),( 2) Operational research and
management (ex., delivery problem, transportation), and
(3) business and economic (ex., sales control, motivation,
performance). This latter stream is known in the sales force
literature as the sales force management. Figure 3a shows
that the two first streams are close, but these streams are very
distant to the sales force management. Our finding indicated
that the research on the Travel sales salesman solution is
more developed (ex., more frequency words, more publica-
tions’ number) than the others. So, it can probably be advan-
tageous for the sales force management scholars to consider
the other streams in their research, in order to better develop
the sales force literature.
Limitations and future research
The first limit of this research is the timespan of coverage
between Scopus database (1912–2019) and WOS database
(1991–2019). The second limit is our consideration of only
two databases to make bibliometric analysis for sales force
literature. Future research should assess others, such as Pro-
Quest and Google Scholar. We also assess only two types
of documents, articles, and conference proceedings. Future
research should extend document types to include books,
research notes, and theses. The third limit is that for many
years, especially the older dates, the papers in the Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management haven’t keywords.
Research should also compare the three databases assessed
in this study on topics other than those found in sales force
literature to assess the validity of current findings.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Archambault, E., D. Campbell, Y. Gingras, and V. Larivière. 2009.
Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of
1
It: the promotion’s plan.
Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales…
Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Infor-
mation Science and Technology 60 (7): 1320–1326.
Archambault, E., É. Vignola-Gagne, G. Côté, V. Larivère, and Y. Gin-
gras. 2006. Benchmarking scientific outputs in the social sciences
and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics
68 (3): 329–342.
Aria, M., and C. Cuccurullo. 2017. Bibliometrix: An R-tool for com-
prehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics 11
(4): 959–975.
Bartol, T., and M. Mackiewicz-Talarczyk. 2015. Bibliometric analysis
of publishing trends in fiber crops in Google Scholar, Scopus,
and Web of Science. Journal of Natural Fibers 12 (6): 531–541.
Beard, F. 2015. Forgotten classics: The business of advertising, by
Earnest Elmo Calkins (1915). Journal of Historical Research in
Marketing 7 (4): 573–583.
Bush, A.J., and S.E. Grant. 1991. An analysis of leading contributors
to the sales force research literature, 1980 through 1990. Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management 11 (3): 47–56.
Bush, A.J., and S.E. Grant. 1994. Analyzing the content of market-
ing journals to assess trends in sales force research: 1980–1992.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 14 (3): 57–68.
Calkins, E.E. 1915. The business of advertising. New York, NY: D.
Appleton and Company.
Castillo-Vergara, M., A. Alvarez-Marin, and D. Placencio-Hidalgo.
2018. A bibliometric analysis of creativity in the field of business
economics. J. Bus. Res. 85: 1–9.
Chirici, G. 2012. Assessing the scientific productivity of Italian forest
researchers using the Web of Science, SCOPUS and SCIMAGO
databases. IForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry 5 (3): 101–107.
Ellegaard, O., and J.A. Wallin. 2015. The bibliometric analysis of
scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1119​2-015-1645-z.
Ertz, M., and A. Leblanc-Proulx. 2019. Review of a proposed meth-
odology for bibliometric and visualization analyses for organiza-
tions: application to the collaboration economy. Journal of Mar-
keting Analytics 7: 84–93.
Escalona, M.I., P. Lagar, and A. Pulgarín. 2010. Web of Science vs.
Scopus: un estudio cuantitativo en Ingeniería Química. Anales de
Documentación 13: 159–175.
Fabregat-Aibar, L., M. Barberà-Mariné, G. Terceño, and A. Laia Pié.
2019. Bibliometric and visualization analysis of socially respon-
sible funds. Sustainability 11: 2526.
Fingerman, S. 2006. Web of Science and Scopus: Current features
and capabilities. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship
48: 4.
Garfield, E. 1971. The mystery of the transposed journal lists: Wherein
Bradford’s law of scattering is generalized according to Garfield’s
law of concentration. Current Contents 1: 222–223.
Garrigos-Simon, F., Y. Narangajavana-Kaosiri, and I. Lengua-Lengua.
2018. Tourism and sustainability: A bibliometric and visualization
analysis. Sustainability 10: 1976.
Gavel, Y., and L. Iselid. 2008. Web of Science and Scopus: A journal
title overlap study. Online Information Review 32 (1): 8–21.
Goodman, D., and L. Deis. 2007. Update on scopus and web of science.
The Charleston Advisor 7 (3): 15–18.
Hall, C.M. 2011. Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal
ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism. Tour.
Manag 32: 16–27.
Harzing, A.-W., and S. Alakangas. 2016. Google Scholar, Scopus and
the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary com-
parison. Scientometrics 106 (2): 787–804.
Knoke, D., and S. Yang. 2008. Social network analysis, 2nd ed. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Leigh, T.W., E.B. Pullins, and L.B. Comer. 2001. The top ten sales
articles of the 20th century. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management 21 (3): 217–227.
Mingers, J., and E. Lipitakis. 2010. Counting the citations; a compari-
son of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business
and management. Scientometrics 85 (2): 613–625.
Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D.G. Altman. 2009. Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The
PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 151: 1–8.
Mongeon, P., and A. Paul-Hus. 2016. The journal coverage of Web of
Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106
(1): 213–228.
Muhuri, P.K., A.K. Shukla, and A. Abraham. 2019. Industry 4.0: A
bibliometric analysis and detailed overview. Engineering Applica-
tions of Artificial Intelligence 78: 218–235.
Norris, M., and C. Oppenheim. 2007. Comparing alternatives to the
Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature.
Journal of Informetrics 1 (1): 161–169.
Plouffe, C.R., B.C. Williams, and T. Wachner. 2008. Navigating dif-
ficult waters: publishing trends and scholarship in sales research.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 28 (1): 79–92.
Pritchard, A. 1969. Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics? Journal
of Documentation 254: 348–349.
Reinelt, G. 1991. Tsplib: A traveling salesman problem library. ORSA,
Journal on Computing 3 (4): 376–384.
Richards, K.A., W.C. Moncrief, and G.W. Marshall. 2010. Tracking
and updating academic research in selling and sales management:
A decade later. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Manage-
ment 30 (3): 253–272.
Schrock, W.A., W. Zhao, D.E. Hughes, and K.A. Richards. 2016.
JPSSM since the beginning: intellectual cornerstones, knowledge
structure, and thematic developments. Journal of Personal Selling
& Sales Management 36 (4): 321–343.
Sheldon, A.F. 1911. The art of selling. Libertyville, IL: The Sheldon
University Press.
Strozzia, F., C. Colicchia, A. Creazza, and C. Noè. 2017. Litera-
ture review on the ‘Smart Factory’ concept using bibliometric
tools. International Journal of Production Research 55 (22):
6572–6591.
Sánchez, A.D., M. Del Río Rama, and J.Á. García. 2017. Bibliometric
analysis of publications on wine tourism in the databases Scopus
and WoS. European Research on Management and Business Eco-
nomics 231: 8–15.
Wagner, A.B. 2015. A Practical comparison of Scopus and Web
of Science core collection https://ubir.buffalo.edu/xmlui/
handle/10477/38568
Wang, Q., and L. Waltman. 2016. Large-scale analysis of the accuracy
of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Sco-
pus. Journal of Informetrics 10 (2): 347–364.
Williams, B.C., and C.R. Plouffe. 2007. Assessing the evolution of
sales knowledge: A 20-year content analysis. Industrial Marketing
Management 36 (4): 408–419.
Witkowski, T.H. 2012. Marketing education and acculturation in the
early twentieth century. Journal of Historical Research in Market-
ing 4 (1): 97–128.
Zyoud, S.H., W.S. Waring, S.W. Al-Jabi, and W.M. Sweileh. 2017.
Global cocaine intoxication research trends during 1975–2015: A
bibliometric analysis of Web of Science publications. Substance
Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 12 (6): 1–16.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Said Echchakoui is a Professor of Marketing at the University of
Quebec at Rimouski. He holds DBA degree from the University of
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada. He is affiliated at the Association of
Professional Engineers & Geoscientists of New Brunswick, Canada.

His research interests focus on sales force, relationship marketing, mod-
eling, strategy, and loyalty. His work has been published in journals
such as the European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Jour-
nal of Modelling in Management, Journal of Marketing Analytics,
S. Echchakoui
European research on management and business economics, Journal of
Global Marketing and Global Business and Organizational Excellence,
and in proceedings such as The Annual Conference of the Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, and The National Conference in
Sales Management.