The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A new methodology for constructing a publication‐level classification system of science
Open accessAbstract
Classifying journals or publications into research areas is an essential element of many bibliometric analyses. Classification usually takes place at the level of journals, where the W eb of S cience subject categories are the most popular classification system. However, journal‐level classification systems have two important limitations: They offer only a limited amount of detail, and they have difficulties with multidisciplinary journals. To avoid these limitations, we introduce a new methodology for constructing classification systems at the level of individual publications. In the proposed methodology, publications are clustered into research areas based on citation relations. The methodology is able to deal with very large numbers of publications. We present an application in which a classification system is produced that includes almost 10 million publications. Based on an extensive analysis of this classification system, we discuss the strengths and the limitations of the proposed methodology. Important strengths are the transparency and relative simplicity of the methodology and its fairly modest computing and memory requirements. The main limitation of the methodology is its exclusive reliance on direct citation relations between publications. The accuracy of the methodology can probably be increased by also taking into account other types of relations–for instance, based on bibliographic coupling.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 · Cited by 21,484
Self-citationFinding and evaluating community structure in networks
Newman, M. E. J., & Girvan, M. (2004) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.69.026113 · Cited by 13,931
Cited by
From Louvain to Leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities
Traag, V. A., Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-41695-z · Cited by 5,635
Self-citationA review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007 · Cited by 1,356
Self-citationA smart local moving algorithm for large-scale modularity-based community detection
Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2013) · The European Physical Journal B · doi:10.1140/epjb/e2013-40829-0 · Cited by 1,088
Self-citationWang, Q., & Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003 · Cited by 417
Self-citationSearch where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases
Gusenbauer, M. (2022) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04289-7 · Cited by 211
Metadata
- Authors
- Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-11-20
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2378-2392
- ISSN
- 1532-2882 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2890
- OpenAlex
- W2126566678
- Cited by
- 661
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 26.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A new methodology for constructing a publication‐level classification system of science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/asi.22748
- The paper
- Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2012). A new methodology for constructing a publication‐level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.