IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v99y2014i3d10.1007_s11192-013-1000-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Best-in-class and strategic benchmarking of scientific subject categories of Web of Science in 2010

Author

Listed:
  • J. A. García

    (Universidad de Granada)

  • Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez

    (Universidad de Granada)

  • J. Fdez-Valdivia

    (Universidad de Granada)

  • Nicolas Robinson-García

    (Universidad de Granada)

  • Daniel Torres-Salinas

    (Universidad de Navarra)

Abstract

Here we show a novel technique for comparing subject categories, where the prestige of academic journals in each category is represented statistically by an impact-factor histogram. For each subject category we compute the probability of occurrence of scholarly journals with impact factor in different intervals. Here impact factor is measured with Thomson Reuters Impact Factor, Eigenfactor Score, and Immediacy Index. Assuming the probabilities associated with a pair of subject categories our objective is to measure the degree of dissimilarity between them. To do so, we use an axiomatic characterization for predicting dissimilarity between subject categories. The scientific subject categories of Web of Science in 2010 were used to test the proposed approach for benchmarking Cell Biology and Computer Science Information Systems with the rest as two case studies. The former is best-in-class benchmarking that involves studying the leading competitor category; the latter is strategic benchmarking that involves observing how other scientific subject categories compete.

Suggested Citation

  • J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia & Nicolas Robinson-García & Daniel Torres-Salinas, 2014. "Best-in-class and strategic benchmarking of scientific subject categories of Web of Science in 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 615-630, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:99:y:2014:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1000-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1000-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-013-1000-1
    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/s11192-013-1000-1?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. Henk F. Moed, 2008. "UK Research Assessment Exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(1), pages 153-161, January.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann, 2011. "Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors: An alternative research design with policy implications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(11), pages 2133-2146, November.
    3. Torres-Salinas, Daniel & Rodríguez-Sánchez, Rosa & Robinson-García, Nicolás & Fdez-Valdivia, J. & García, J.A., 2013. "Mapping citation patterns of book chapters in the Book Citation Index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 412-424.
    4. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-7, April.
    5. Blaise Cronin & Lokman I. Meho, 2008. "The shifting balance of intellectual trade in information studies," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(4), pages 551-564, February.
    6. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2011. "National research assessment exercises: the effects of changing the rules of the game during the game," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 229-238, July.
    7. Reindert K. Buter & Ed. C. M. Noyons & Anthony F. J. Raan, 2011. "Searching for converging research using field to field citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 325-338, February.
    8. David Adam, 2002. "The counting house," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6873), pages 726-729, February.
    9. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia & J. Martinez-Baena, 2012. "On first quartile journals which are not of highest impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 925-943, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yan, Erjia & Ding, Ying & Cronin, Blaise & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2013. "A bird's-eye view of scientific trading: Dependency relations among fields of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 249-264.
    2. Mikko Packalen & Jay Bhattacharya, 2017. "Neophilia ranking of scientific journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 43-64, January.
    3. Minxian Zheng & Kuangji Zhao & Shikui Zhao & Yantong Zhang, 2020. "Effecting variables of journal’s ranking in forestry field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 135-151, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    6. Antonio Fernandez-Cano & Inés M. Fernández-Guerrero, 2017. "A multivariate model for evaluating emergency medicine journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 991-1003, February.
    7. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-García & Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, 2014. "Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2113-2127, March.
    8. Lawson, Cornelia & Geuna, Aldo & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Toselli, Manuel & Kataishi, Rodrigo, 2015. "International Careers of Researchers in Biomedical Sciences: A Comparison of the US and the UK," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201514, University of Turin.
    9. Juan A Crespo & Ignacio Ortuño-Ortín & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2012. "The Citation Merit of Scientific Publications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-9, November.
    10. Fiorenzo Franceschini & Maurizio Galetto & Domenico Maisano & Luca Mastrogiacomo, 2012. "The success-index: an alternative approach to the h-index for evaluating an individual’s research output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(3), pages 621-641, September.
    11. Stefan, Matthias & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Sutter, Matthias & Walzl, Markus, 2023. "Monetary and social incentives in multi-tasking: The ranking substitution effect," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    12. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia & J. Martinez-Baena, 2012. "On first quartile journals which are not of highest impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 925-943, March.
    13. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    14. Matthias Stefan & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Matthias Sutter & Markus Walzl, 2020. "Monetary and Social Incentives in Multi-Tasking: The Ranking Substitution Effect," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    15. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2012. "Which are the best performing regions in information science in terms of highly cited papers? Some improvements of our previous mapping approaches," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 336-345.
    16. Perc, Matjaž, 2010. "Zipf’s law and log-normal distributions in measures of scientific output across fields and institutions: 40 years of Slovenia’s research as an example," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 358-364.
    17. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    18. Ludo Waltman & Michael Schreiber, 2013. "On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 372-379, February.
    19. 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).
    20. Aurora A.C. Teixeira & José Sequeira, 2009. "Determinants of the international influence of a R&D organisation: a bibliometric approach," UITT Working Papers 2009-03-wp3, INESC Porto, Unidade de Inovação e Transferência de Tecnologia(UITT).

    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:99:y:2014:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1000-1. 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.