Just to note: Web of Science and Thompson Reuters are the same thing.

Thank you Artur, well noted.

Thanks George. If you like the answer please remember to recommend it by clicking on that button with a blue arrow and the word Recommend under the answer :)

Right now it is the ISI-index... but I guess Scopus is catching up pretty fast, and with a larger number of journals...

Thanks John, really appreciate your contribution.

Larger number of journals to cover does NOT mean a better index to be! In terms of the rigorism of selection the WoS is better. And mention that Scopus has been developed is owned by the publishing Corporation Elsevier; so the owener's claims to objectivity of selection of journals in this case seem rather ridiculous: "the own" publications are covered with less rigorism, while the WoS is owned by an organization independent on any publisher. Finally, developed by Eugene Garfield, the Science Citation Index (now WoS) system was absolutely a pioneer, a revolutionary, while Scopus re-occupied the same niche – a position that not the most encouraging in modern business is .

And if you want to assess the usefulness of non-chrmical journal, the Scopus would be of absolutely no use. And the SCImagoJournal Ranking also will be in no use in this case, only the Journal citation Reports as a part of WoS would be helpful.

Great! Thank you Vladimir for taking your time to explain in detail.

If you would check... most journals with high impact factor are indexed in both indexes... so if somebody is thinking/looking to publish in a journal with a high reputation (impact), better check both indexes. (Although I am not very familiar in the field of chemistry, and I might be wrong).

But most probably, you will find that (high impact) journal in both indexes.

Hi

I wrote a short note about this

It might be useful

I also compared with Scholar and Researchgate

best

Gil