IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i10d10.1007_s11192-021-04143-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inequalities in the growth of Web of Science

Author

Listed:
  • Raf Vanderstraeten

    (Ghent University
    The London School of Economics and Political Science)

  • Frédéric Vandermoere

    (University of Antwerp)

Abstract

The databases of Web of Science (WoS) have rapidly expanded their coverage of scientific journal during the past few decades. For the providers of WoS, this growth strategy has been a way to reduce existing biases in the coverage of these databases, especially in geographical regard. We look into the consequences of this strategy at the level of disciplines, and discuss its underlying rationales. Our analyses particularly focus on the SSCI. We first highlight interdisciplinary inequalities in the coverage of this database, and discuss why disciplines, such as Economics and Management, which are hierarchically-structured and whose journals have high impact factors in WoS, have benefited most from the growth of WoS. Their relative weight in the SSCI has grown at the expense of other disciplines. We also argue that changes in the coverage of this database have performative effects. There are winners and losers of the editorial expansion strategy of WoS in the real academic world. In the concluding section, we suggest that the providers of WoS reconsider the coverage of their databases in order to reflect and protect the interdisciplinary diversity in the world of science.

Suggested Citation

  • Raf Vanderstraeten & Frédéric Vandermoere, 2021. "Inequalities in the growth of Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8635-8651, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:10:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04143-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04143-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04143-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-04143-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diego Chavarro & Ismael Ràfols & Puay Tang, 2018. "To what extent is inclusion in the Web of Science an indicator of journal ‘quality’?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 106-118.
    2. Yves Gingras & Mahdi Khelfaoui, 2018. "Assessing the effect of the United States’ “citation advantage” on other countries’ scientific impact as measured in the Web of Science (WoS) database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 517-532, February.
    3. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/67ft27s7u58ocangahl1jigu6p is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Miguel-Angel Vera-Baceta & Michael Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2019. "Web of Science and Scopus language coverage," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1803-1813, December.
    5. Vivek Kumar Singh & Prashasti Singh & Mousumi Karmakar & Jacqueline Leta & Philipp Mayr, 2021. "The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5113-5142, June.
    6. Loet Leydesdorff & Caroline Wagner, 2009. "Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(1), pages 23-36, January.
    7. Marion Fourcade & Etienne Ollion & Yann Algan, 2015. "The Superiority of Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(1), pages 89-114, Winter.
    8. Jonathan Adams, 2012. "The rise of research networks," Nature, Nature, vol. 490(7420), pages 335-336, October.
    9. Philippe Mongeon & Adèle Paul-Hus, 2016. "The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 213-228, January.
    10. Imad A. Moosa, 2018. "Publish or Perish," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 17542.
    11. Junwen Zhu & Weishu Liu, 2020. "A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 321-335, April.
    12. David A. Pendlebury & Jonathan Adams, 2012. "Comments on a critique of the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 395-401, August.
    13. Marion Fourcade & Etienne Ollion & Yann Algan, 2015. "The Superiority of Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(1), pages 89-114, Winter.
    14. ., 2018. "Publish or perish: Origin and perceived benefits," Chapters, in: Publish or Perish, chapter 1, pages 1-17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Marion Fourcade & Etienne Ollion & Yann Algan, 2015. "La superioridad de los economistas," Revista de Economía Institucional, Universidad Externado de Colombia - Facultad de Economía, vol. 17(33), pages 13-43, July-Dece.
    16. Tobias Kiesslich & Silke B Weineck & Dorothea Koelblinger, 2016. "Reasons for Journal Impact Factor Changes: Influence of Changing Source Items," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-12, April.
    17. Linda Sīle & Raf Vanderstraeten, 2019. "Measuring changes in publication patterns in a context of performance-based research funding systems: the case of educational research in the University of Gothenburg (2005–2014)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 71-91, January.
    18. Elea Giménez-Toledo & Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez & Tim C. E. Engels & Peter Ingwersen & Janne Pölönen & Gunnar Sivertsen & Frederik T. Verleysen & Alesia A. Zuccala, 2016. "Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 685-699, May.
    19. Martin Szomszor & David A. Pendlebury & Jonathan Adams, 2020. "How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1119-1147, May.
    20. Elea Giménez-Toledo & Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez & Tim C. E. Engels & Raf Guns & Emanuel Kulczycki & Michael Ochsner & Janne Pölönen & Gunnar Sivertsen & Alesia A. Zuccala, 2019. "Taking scholarly books into account, part II: a comparison of 19 European countries in evaluation and funding," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 233-251, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lyu, Haihua & Bu, Yi & Zhao, Zhenyue & Zhang, Jiarong & Li, Jiang, 2022. "Citation bias in measuring knowledge flow: Evidence from the web of science at the discipline level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    2. Fang Liu, 2023. "Retrieval strategy and possible explanations for the abnormal growth of research publications: re-evaluating a bibliometric analysis of climate change," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 853-859, January.
    3. Joshua Eykens & Raf Guns & Raf Vanderstraeten, 2022. "Subject specialties as interdisciplinary trading grounds: the case of the social sciences and humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7193-7213, December.
    4. Rongrong Li & Feng Ren & Qiang Wang, 2024. "China–US scientific collaboration on sustainable development amidst geopolitical tensions," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-19, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2020. "How the Publish-or-Perish Principle Divides a Science : The Case of Academic Economists," Discussion Paper 2020-020, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    2. Dušan Nikolić & Dragan Ivanović & Lidija Ivanović, 2024. "An open-source tool for merging data from multiple citation databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4573-4595, July.
    3. Philipp Korom, 2019. "A bibliometric visualization of the economics and sociology of wealth inequality: a world apart?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 849-868, March.
    4. Congying Fang & Riken Homma & Tianfu Qiu, 2024. "A Bibliometrics Analysis Related to the Built Environment and Walking," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-17, March.
    5. Hendrik P. Dalen, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1675-1694, February.
    6. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists," Other publications TiSEM a6a5a855-bb5a-4d52-a841-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Andrew Mearman & Sebastian Berger & Danielle Guizzo, 2016. "Curriculum reform in UK economics: a critique," Working Papers 20161611, Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol.
    8. Goddard, Jessica J. & Kallis, Giorgos & Norgaard, Richard B., 2019. "Keeping multiple antennae up: Coevolutionary foundations for methodological pluralism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Thoma, Johanna, 2018. "Book review: economics rules," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84173, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Jishnu Das & Quy-Toan Do, 2020. "US and them - The geography of academic research," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 111-114, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    11. Michael E. Rose, 2022. "Small world: Narrow, wide, and long replication of Goyal, van der Leij and Moraga‐Gonzélez (JPE 2006) and a comparison of EconLit and Scopus," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 820-828, June.
    12. Angela Ambrosino & Mario Cedrini & John B. Davis, 2024. "Today’s economics: one, no one and one hundred thousand," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 59-76, January.
    13. Brown, Craig O., 2020. "Economic leadership and growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 298-333.
    14. Florentin Gloetzl & Ernest Aigner, 2015. "Pluralism in the Market of Science? A citation network analysis of economic research at universities in Vienna," Ecological Economics Papers ieep5, Institute of Ecological Economics.
    15. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Kun Lu & Gang Li, 2021. "Finding citations for PubMed: a large-scale comparison between five freely available bibliographic data sources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9519-9542, December.
    16. Matthias Aistleitner & Jakob Kapeller & Stefan Steinerberger, 2018. "Citation Patterns in Economics and Beyond," Working Papers Series 85, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    17. Etienne Farvaque & Frédéric Gannon, 2018. "Profiling giants: the networks and influence of Buchanan and Tullock," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 277-302, June.
    18. Christian Grimm & Jakob Kapeller & Stephan Puehringer, 2017. "Zum Profil der deutschsprachigen Volkswirtschaftslehre: Paradigmatische Ausrichtung und politische Orientierung deutschsprachiger Oekonom_innen (On the current state of German-speaking Economics: Para," ICAE Working Papers 70, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.
    19. Lundgren, Jakob, 2022. "Unity through disunity: Strengths, values, and tensions in the disciplinary discourse of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    20. Matthias Aistleitner & Stephan Puehringer, 2023. "Biased Trade Narratives and Its Influence on Development Studies: A Multi-level Mixed-Method Approach," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(6), pages 1322-1346, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:10:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04143-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.