IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v79y2009i3d10.1007_s11192-007-1975-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expansion of scientific journal categories using reference analysis: How can it be done and does it make a difference?

Author

Listed:
  • Carmen López-Illescas

    (University of Granada)

  • Ed C.M. Noyons

    (Leiden University)

  • Martijn S. Visser

    (Leiden University)

  • Félix De Moya-Anegón

    (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC))

  • Henk F. Moed

    (Leiden University)

Abstract

This paper explores a methodology for delimitating scientific subfields by combining the use of (specialist) journal categories from Thomson Scientific’s Web of Science (WoS) and reference analysis. In a first step it selects all articles in journals included in a particular WoS journal category covering a subfield. These journals are labelled as a subfield’s specialist journals. In a second step, this set of papers is expanded with papers published in other, additional journals and citing a subfield’s specialist journals with a frequency exceeding a certain citation threshold. Data are presented for two medical subfields: Oncology and Cardiac & Cardiovascular System. A validation based on findings from earlier studies, from an analysis of MESH descriptors from MEDLINE, and on expert opinion provides evidence that the proposed methodology has a high precision, and that expansion substantially enhanced the recall, not merely in terms of the number of retrieved papers, but also in terms of the number of research topics covered. The paper also examines how a bibliometric ranking of countries and universities based on the citation impact of their papers published in a subfield’s specialist journals compares to that of a ranking based on the impact of their articles in additional journals. Rather weak correlations especially obtained at the level of universities underline the conclusion from earlier studies that an assessment of research groups or universities in a scientific subfield that takes into account solely papers published in a subfield’s specialist journals is unsatisfactory.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:79:y:2009:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-007-1975-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-007-1975-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-007-1975-6
    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/s11192-007-1975-6?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. G. Lewison, 1999. "The definition and calibration of biomedical subfields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 46(3), pages 529-537, November.
    4. T N van Leeuwen & L J van der Wurff & A F J van Raan, 2001. "The use of combined bibliometric methods in research funding policy," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 195-201, December.
    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. Wang, Qi & Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 347-364.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff & Daniele Rotolo & Ismael Rafols, 2012. "Bibliometric perspectives on medical innovation using the medical subject Headings of PubMed," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2239-2253, November.
    3. Staša Milojević, 2020. "Nature, Science, and PNAS: disciplinary profiles and impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1301-1315, June.
    4. Urdiales, Cristina & Guzmán, Eduardo, 2024. "An automatic and association-based procedure for hierarchical publication subject categorization," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    5. Antonio J. Gómez-Núñez & Benjamín Vargas-Quesada & Félix Moya-Anegón & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2011. "Improving SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) subject classification through reference analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 741-758, December.
    6. Cristóbal Urbano & Jordi Ardanuy, 2020. "Cross-disciplinary collaboration versus coexistence in LIS serials: analysis of authorship affiliations in four European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 575-602, July.

    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. Grit Laudel, 2003. "Studying the brain drain: Can bibliometric methods help?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(2), pages 215-237, June.
    2. Grant Lewison & Guillermo Paraje, 2004. "The classification of biomedical journals by research level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(2), pages 145-157, June.
    3. Jacqueline Leta & Grant Lewison, 2003. "The contribution of women in Brazilian science: A case study in astronomy, immunology and oceanography," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(3), pages 339-353, July.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Elena Pallari & Grant Lewison, 2022. "Cardiovascular and cancer risk factors analysis for 2001–2020 from the global research output and European newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5159-5174, September.
    7. Lundberg, Jonas, 2007. "Lifting the crown—citation z-score," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 145-154.
    8. Cozzarin, Brian P., 2008. "Data and the measurement of R&D program impacts," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 284-298, August.
    9. Philippe Jeannin & Joëlle Devillard, 2005. "Implementing relevant disciplinary evaluations in the social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(1), pages 121-144, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Grant Lewison, 2002. "Researchers" and users" perceptions of the relative standing of biomedical papers in different journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(2), pages 229-240, February.
    12. Tanskanen, Kari & Ahola, Tuomas & Aminoff, Anna & Bragge, Johanna & Kaipia, Riikka & Kauppi, Katri, 2017. "Towards evidence-based management of external resources: Developing design propositions and future research avenues through research synthesis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1087-1105.
    13. G. Lewison, 1999. "The definition and calibration of biomedical subfields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 46(3), pages 529-537, November.
    14. 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.
    15. Pedro Cosme Vieira & Aurora A. C. Teixeira, 2010. "Are finance, management, and marketing autonomous fields of scientific research? An analysis based on journal citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(3), pages 627-646, December.
    16. Ajay Aggarwal & Preeti Patel & Grant Lewison & Abdulkarim Ekzayez & Adam Coutts & Fouad M Fouad & Omar Shamieh & Rita Giacaman & Tezer Kutluk & Rima Abdul Khalek & Mark Lawler & Peter Boyle & Diana Sa, 2020. "The Profile of Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) research in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region: Analyzing the NCD burden, research outputs and international research collaboration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, April.
    17. Rons, Nadine, 2018. "Bibliometric approximation of a scientific specialty by combining key sources, title words, authors and references," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 113-132.
    18. H. Martinez & A. Jaime & J. Camacho, 2014. "Biotechnology profile analysis in Colombia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1789-1804, December.
    19. 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.
    20. Yuen-Hsien Tseng & Chun-Yen Chang & M. Shane Tutwiler & Ming-Chao Lin & James P. Barufaldi, 2013. "A scientometric analysis of the effectiveness of Taiwan’s educational research projects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 1141-1166, June.

    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:79:y:2009:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-007-1975-6. 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.