The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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 accessAbstract
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.
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“different bibliographic DBs sort their indexed content based on their own individual subject classification schemes”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [176]
In the citing paper
“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].”
From Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level (2016) · cites this paper as [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.
Citations
Cites
Fast unfolding of communities in large networks
Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008) · Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment · doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/p10008 · Cited by 21,424
Science and Engineering Indicators
Washington, E., & Warren, M. E. (2004) · Cited by 2,822
Garfield, E. (1972) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.178.4060.471 · Cited by 2,788 · cited 2×
“re needed for the comparison. The impact factor (IF) cannot be used for this evaluation because, like other bibliometric indicators, this measure varies itself systematically among fields of science. Garfield (1972) introduced the IF deliberately with a citation window of only the last two years of cited articles in o…”
BackgroundMethodAn algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs
Kamada, T., & Kawai, S. (1989) · Information Processing Letters · doi:10.1016/0020-0190(89)90102-6 · Cited by 2,750
Citation Indexes for Science: A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas
Garfield, E. (1955) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.122.3159.108 · Cited by 2,334
Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research
Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W., & Schmoch, U. (2005) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/1-4020-2755-9 · Cited by 1,385
Science and Engineering Indicators 1998
Wink, D. J. (1998) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/ed075p1078 · Cited by 1,337
Mapping the backbone of science
Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0255-6 · Cited by 992
Sources of information on specific subjects 1934
(1985) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/016555158501000407 · Cited by 864
Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact
Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0806977105 · Cited by 828
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Boyack K.W., 2011, The 13th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, 123
- Butler L., 2010, Book of Abstracts of the 11th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, September 9–11, 62
- 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, 5
- Katz J.S. &Hicks D.(1995 June).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 River Forest IL (pp.105–115).
- 10.1007/s11192‐012‐0783‐8 · DOI
- Rehn C., 2014, Bibliometric handbook for Karolinska Institutet
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World
Pranckutė, R. (2021) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications9010012 · Cited by 2,696
A 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
A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics
Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002 · Cited by 1,002
Hutchins, B. I., Yuan, X., Anderson, J. M., & Santangelo, G. M. (2016) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541 · Cited by 500
Wang, Q., & Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003 · Cited by 417
Metadata
- 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)
- ORCID
- Bornmann, Lutz
- 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
- FWCI
- 15.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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 › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › 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
