Background and Aim: Data extracted from ISI databases (indexes) and the scientometric indicators are the bases of judgment on scientific influence and developments. This review article aimed at explaining possible differences in the scientometrics of sciences, social sciences and humanities based on ISI’s scientometric indicators.

Material and Methods: Reanalyzing statistical data of some scientometric literature, extracting data from ISI Web of Knowledge and reviewing literature, these differences were explored in this paper.

Findings: Limits of these databases in one hand and natural and inherent differences among scholarship fields and disciplines in other hand questioned the same use and similar interpretation of these indicators. Factors account to arise such differences include among others: discrepancies in ISI coverage of science, social science and humanities, different national/international orientation of ISI indexed journals in terms of different scholarship fields, disciplines and domains, variations in theatrical developments and consequent variations in citing and publishing behaviors of scholars, different publication formats and different target audience, language barriers (domination of English language in ISI indexes), tendency to one-authored publishing in some soft/qualitative fields, and citation to multiple written communication media in social science and humanities rather than in science.

Conclusion: Considering the limitations of ISI scientometric indicators in evaluating all disciplines and fields, a methodology including current reformed methods in scientometrics and peer judgment is needed for achieving the best way, especially for scientometrics in qualitative fields of social science and humanities.