IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v49y2000i1d10.1023_a1005653006993.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of Bibliometric Indicators in the Field of Microbiology: A Norwegian Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Dag W. Aksnes

    (Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education (NIFU))

  • Terje Bruen Olsen

    (Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education (NIFU))

  • Per O. Seglen

    (Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education (NIFU))

Abstract

This paper addresses two related issues regarding the validity of bibliometric indicators for the assessment of national performance within a particular scientific field. Firstly, the representativeness of a journal-based subject classification; and secondly, the completeness of the database coverage. Norwegian publishing in microbiology was chosen as a case, using the standard ISI-product National Science Indicators on Diskette (NSIOD) as a source database. By applying an "author-gated" retrieval procedure, we found that only 41 percent of all publications in NSIOD-indexed journals, expert-classified as microbiology, were included under the NSIOD-category Microbiology. Thus, the set of defining core journals only is clearly not sufficient to delineate this complex biomedical field. Furthermore, a subclassification of the articles into different subdisciplines of microbiology revealed systematic differences with respect to representation in NSIOD's Microbiology field; fish microbiology and medical microbiology are particularly underrepresented. In a second step, the individual publication lists from a sample of Norwegian microbiologists were collected and compared with the publications by the same authors, retrieved bibliometrically. The results showed that a large majority (94%) of the international scientific production in Norwegian microbiology was covered by the database NSIOD. Thus, insufficient subfield delineation, and not lack of coverage, appeared to be the main methodological problem in the bibliometric analysis of microbiology.

Suggested Citation

  • Dag W. Aksnes & Terje Bruen Olsen & Per O. Seglen, 2000. "Validation of Bibliometric Indicators in the Field of Microbiology: A Norwegian Case Study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 7-22, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:49:y:2000:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1005653006993
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1005653006993
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1005653006993
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1005653006993?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. Diana Hicks, 1999. "The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 44(2), pages 193-215, February.
    2. Anton J Nederhof, 1991. "Delimitation of a medical research topic: interaction with experts in selecting a database and constructing a search strategy," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 149-154, December.
    3. Moed, H. F. & Burger, W. J. M. & Frankfort, J. G. & Van Raan, A. F. J., 1985. "The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 131-149, June.
    4. Francis Narin & Gabriel Pinski & Helen Hofer Gee, 1976. "Structure of the Biomedical Literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 27(1), pages 25-45, January.
    5. Grant Lewison, 1996. "The definition of biomedical research subfields with title keywords and application to the analysis of research outputs," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 25-36, April.
    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. Per O. Seglen & Dag W. Aksnes, 2000. "Scientific Productivity and Group Size: A Bibliometric Analysis of Norwegian Microbiological Research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 125-143, August.
    2. Patricia Laurens & Michel Zitt & Elise Bassecoulard, 2010. "Delineation of the genomics field by hybrid citation-lexical methods: interaction with experts and validation process," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 647-662, March.
    3. Aksnes, Dag W. & Schneider, Jesper W. & Gunnarsson, Magnus, 2012. "Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 36-43.
    4. Tomaz Bartol & Gordana Budimir & Primoz Juznic & Karmen Stopar, 2016. "Mapping and classification of agriculture in Web of Science: other subject categories and research fields may benefit," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 979-996, November.
    5. H. Martinez & A. Jaime & J. Camacho, 2014. "Biotechnology profile analysis in Colombia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1789-1804, December.
    6. Grit Laudel, 2003. "Studying the brain drain: Can bibliometric methods help?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(2), pages 215-237, June.
    7. Carmen López-Illescas & Ed C.M. Noyons & Martijn S. Visser & Félix De Moya-Anegón & Henk F. Moed, 2009. "Expansion of scientific journal categories using reference analysis: How can it be done and does it make a difference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(3), pages 473-490, June.

    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. Chiara Franzoni & Christopher L. Simpkins & Baoli Li & Ashwin Ram, 2010. "Using content analysis to investigate the research paths chosen by scientists over time," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 321-335, April.
    2. Bertocchi, Graziella & Gambardella, Alfonso & Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela A. & Peracchi, Franco, 2015. "Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 451-466.
    3. Grant Lewison & Guillermo Paraje, 2004. "The classification of biomedical journals by research level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(2), pages 145-157, June.
    4. Thed N. Leeuwen & Erik Wijk & Paul F. Wouters, 2016. "Bibliometric analysis of output and impact based on CRIS data: a case study on the registered output of a Dutch university," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 1-16, January.
    5. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    6. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado & Nicolas Robinson-Garcia, 2023. "Bibliometric denialism," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5357-5359, September.
    7. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Adrián A. Díaz-Faes & María Bordons, 2019. "What characterises funded biomedical research? Evidence from a basic and a clinical domain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 805-825, May.
    8. Albert Banal-Estañol & Qianshuo Liu & Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2021. "Similar-to-me Effects in the Grant Application Process: Applicants, Panelists, and the Likelihood of Obtaining Funds," Working Papers 1289, Barcelona School of Economics.
    9. Vanessa Sandoval-Romero & Vincent Larivière, 2020. "The national system of researchers in Mexico: implications of publication incentives for researchers in social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 99-126, January.
    10. Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2013. "The role of statistics in establishing the similarity of citation distributions in a static and a dynamic context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 173-181, July.
    11. Boyack, Kevin W. & Patek, Michael & Ungar, Lyle H. & Yoon, Patrick & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Classification of individual articles from all of science by research level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12.
    12. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    13. Thor, Andreas & Marx, Werner & Leydesdorff, Loet & Bornmann, Lutz, 2016. "Introducing CitedReferencesExplorer (CRExplorer): A program for reference publication year spectroscopy with cited references standardization," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 503-515.
    14. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    15. Daraio, Cinzia & Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Simar, Léopold, 2015. "Rankings and university performance: A conditional multidimensional approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(3), pages 918-930.
    16. Sándor Soós & Zsófia Vida & András Schubert, 2018. "Long-term trends in the multidisciplinarity of some typical natural and social sciences, and its implications on the SSH versus STM distinction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 795-822, March.
    17. Geert Campenhout & Tom Caneghem & Steve Uytbergen, 2008. "A comparison of overall and sub-area journal influence: The case of the accounting literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(1), pages 61-90, October.
    18. Dell'Anno, Roberto & Caferra, Rocco & Morone, Andrea, 2020. "A “Trojan Horse” in the peer-review process of fee-charging economic journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    19. Hui-Zhen Fu & Yuh-Shan Ho, 2013. "Comparison of independent research of China’s top universities using bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 259-276, July.
    20. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2019. "Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1823-1840.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:49:y:2000:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1005653006993. 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.