Cited by 129scientometrics and bibliometrics researchWeb visibility and informetricsLibrary Science and Information

The operationalization of “fields” as WoS subject categories ( WC s) in evaluative bibliometrics: The cases of “library and information science” and “science & technology studies”

Open access
Leydesdorff, Loet, Bornmann, Lutz·2016·Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Abstract

Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on W eb of S cience subject categories ( WC s) has become an established (“best”) practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the T imes H igher E ducation W orld U niversity R ankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WC s were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine‐based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC “information science & library science” and the WC s attributed to journals in the field of “science and technology studies,” we show that WC s do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of “indexer effects.” Can the compliance with “best practices” be replaced with an ambition to develop “best possible practices”? New research questions can then be envisaged.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/asi.23408

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Different bibliographic DBs sort their indexed content based on their own individual subject classification schemes.

    “different bibliographic DBs sort their indexed content based on their own individual subject classification schemes”
  • Prior attempts to describe a normalized citation metric have resulted in imperfect systems for the comparison of diverse scholarly works, either because they measure only the average performance of a group of papers or because the article of interest is measured against a control group that includes widely varying areas of science.

    “prior attempts to describe a normalized citation metric have resulted in imperfect systems for the comparison of diverse scholarly works (S1 Text and Fig 4E), either because they measure only the average performance of a group of papers [62] or because the article of interest is measured against a control group that includes widely varying areas of science [17,32,48].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 71 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2011). Multiple Dimensions of Journal Specifity: Why journals can't be assigned to disciplines. In E. Noyons, P. Ngulube & J. Leta (Eds.), The 13th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (Vol. I, pp. 123-133). Durban, South Africa: ISSI, Leiden University and the University of Zululand.
  2. Butler, L. (2010). An alternative to WoS subject categories: redefining journal sets for closer alignment to a national classification scheme. Book of Abstracts of the Eleventh International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 62-64), Leiden, September 9-11.
  3. Garfield, E. (1971). The mystery of the transposed journal lists-wherein Bradford's Law of Scattering is generalized according to Garfield's Law of Concentration. Current Contents, 3(33), 5-6.
  4. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation. Science 178(Number 4060), 471-479.
  5. Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1995). The classification of interdisciplinary journals: a new approach. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Riverforest IL, June 7-10.
  6. Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2013). Citation Analysis using the Medline Database at the Web of Knowledge: Searching "Times Cited" with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1076- 1080.
  7. Moed, H., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1995). Improving the Accuracy of the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Impact Factors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 461-467.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) University of Amsterdam P.O. Box 15793, NL‐1001 NG Amsterdam The Netherlands
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
Venue
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-01-08
Volume
67
Issue
3
Pages
707-714
ISSN
  • 2330-1635 (ISSN-L)
  • 2330-1643
OpenAlex
W2591659376
Cited by
129
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4
FWCI
15.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
Keywords
library and information science, science and technology studies, journal classification, Times Higher Education World University Rankings, bibliometric analysis, best practices

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