Top academic database indexes 50+ disciplines with 10M+ articles. That is the cleanest answer to the question behind this post, and it is the one fact most readers need first. The useful part is not the size alone. It is that the database is broad enough to cross fields, while still acting like a research tool and not a general web search site.
I keep coming back to the difference between wide and deep. A database can list a lot of subjects and still be uneven inside them. Here, the publisher claim points to breadth across 50 plus disciplines and a corpus of more than 10 million articles. That makes it a serious starting place for broad academic searching, especially when the topic does not sit neatly in one field.
The plain meaning matters. “Discipline” here means a field of study, like history, biology, or sociology. “Index” means the database lists article records so they can be found by title, author, subject, and other details. In many cases, the record is more important than the full text. A good index helps a reader find the right source fast, even before full access comes into play.
I think the headline is useful because it sets an expectation without overpromising. It says breadth, not perfect coverage. It also says articles, which is narrower than “everything.” That is honest enough for a database claim, and it helps keep the reader from assuming the source will replace subject databases built for one field.
Still, one limit stays in view. A claim like “50 plus disciplines” does not tell me how evenly those fields are covered. It does not tell me how many journals appear in each field, how far back the coverage goes, or how much of the collection is full text versus indexed only. Those details shape real use, and they are often where the gap between a marketing claim and a working search shows up.
That gap is why I prefer plain claims I can hold onto. A broad index can help a student begin, a librarian teach, or a researcher map a topic across fields. But the same broadness can hide thin spots. A database may be excellent for discovery and still weak for full access, older runs, or niche areas.
For the Beyond Citation project, that is the sort of point I want stated directly. A source can be worth knowing without being the final stop. The question is not whether the database sounds large. The question is what kind of finding it makes easy, and what it leaves for the next step.
In practice, the title’s answer is simple. Yes, this is the kind of academic database that spans 50 plus disciplines and more than 10 million articles. That makes it a strong general index for broad academic work. It does not make it complete, and it does not tell the whole story of access or depth.
That is where my view stays measured. I want the claim to stay visible, but I also want its limits to stay visible beside it. A large index can be a real help, yet the value comes from knowing what it indexes, what it does not, and where the record set is thin or unclear.
The Source List works best in that same spirit: one digital source worth knowing, one search tip, and one honest limitation. That is the right scale for a claim like this one, because size matters only when the limits are named too.