Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 347-364

  Wang, Qi ^a   Waltman, Ludo ^b  

^a ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bibliographic database; Citation analysis; Journal classification system; Scopus; Web of Science

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIES; INFORMATION SERVICES; VOCABULARY CONTROL;

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CITATION ANALYSIS; CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM; SCOPUS; WEB OF SCIENCE;

CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION);

EID: 84959513043     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abrizah A., Zainab A.N., Kiran K., Raj R.G. LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: A comparison between Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics 2013, 94(2):721-740.
2. Archambault É., Beauchesne O.H., Caruso J. Towards a multilingual, comprehensive and open scientific journal ontology. Proceedings of the 13th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics 2011, 66-77. E.C.M. Noyons, P. Ngulube, J. Leta (Eds.).
3. Archambault É., Campbell D., Gingras Y., Larivière V. Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(7):1320-1326.
4. Bar-Ilan J., Levene M., Lin A. Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics 2007, 1(1):26-34.
5. Bassecoulard E., Zitt M. Indicators in a research institute: A multi-level classification of scientific journals. Scientometrics 1999, 44(3):323-345.
6. Börner K., Klavans R., Patek M., Zoss A.M., Biberstine J.R., Light R.P., et al. Design and update of a classification system: The UCSD map of science. PLoS ONE 2012, 7(7):e39464.
7. Bornmann L., Mutz R., Neuhaus C., Daniel H.D. Citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008, 8(1):93-102.
8. Boyack K.W., Klavans R. Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61(12):2389-2404.
9. Boyack K.W., Klavans R. Identifying and quantifying research strengths using market segmentation. Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact 2014, 225-241. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. B. Cronin, C.R. Sugimoto (Eds.).
10. Boyack K.W., Newman D., Duhon R.J., Klavans R., Patek M., Biberstine J.R., et al. Clustering more than two million biomedical publications: Comparing the accuracies of nine text-based similarity approaches. PLoS ONE 2011, 6(3):e18029.
11. Carpenter M.P., Narin F. Clustering of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1973, 24(6):425-436.
12. Chemical Abstracts Service The sections of CA 2015, Available online: https://www.cas.org/content/ca-sections.
13. Chen C.M. Classification of scientific networks using aggregated journal-journal citation relations in the Journal Citation Reports. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(14):2296-2304.
14. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA 2006, 295(1):90-93.
15. Glänzel W., Schubert A. A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics 2003, 56(3):357-367.
16. Glänzel W., Schubert A., Czerwon H.J. An item-by-item subject classification of papers published in multidisciplinary and general journals using reference analysis. Scientometrics 1999, 44(3):427-439.
17. Glänzel W., Schubert A., Schoepflin U., Czerwon H.J. An item-by-item subject classification of papers published in journals covered by the SSCI database using reference analysis. Scientometrics 1999, 46(3):431-441.
18. Gómez-Núñez A.J., Batagelj V., Vargas-Quesada B., De Moya-Anegón F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z. Optimizing SCImago Journal & Country Rank classification by community detection. Journal of Informetrics 2014, 8(2):369-383.
19. Gómez-Núñez A.J., Vargas-Quesada B., De Moya-Anegón F. Updating the SCImago Journal and Country Rank classification: A new approach using Ward's clustering and alternative combination of citation measures. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2016, 67(1):178-190.
20. Gómez-Núñez A.J., Vargas-Quesada B., De Moya-Anegón F., Glänzel W. Improving SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) subject classification through reference analysis. Scientometrics 2011, 89(3):741-758.
21. Janssens F., Zhang L., De Moor B., Glänzel W. Hybrid clustering for validation and improvement of subject-classification schemes. Information Processing & Management 2009, 45(6):683-702.
22. Katz J.S., Hicks D. The classification of interdisciplinary journals: A new approach. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics 1995, 245-254. Learned Information, Melford. M.E.D. Koenig, A. Bookstein (Eds.).
23. Klavans R., Boyack K.W. Which type of citation analysis generates the most accurate taxonomy of scientific and technical knowledge? 2015, arxiv:1511.05078.
24. Leydesdorff L. Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2007, 58(9):1303-1319.
25. Leydesdorff L., Bornmann L. The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics: The cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2015, 67(3):707-714.
26. Leydesdorff L., Rafols I. A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(2):348-362.
27. López-Illescas C., De Moya-Anegón F., Moed H.F. Coverage and citation impact of oncological journals in the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics 2008, 2(4):304-316.
28. López-Illescas C., Noyons E., Visser M., De Moya-Anegón F., Moed H. Expansion of scientific journal categories using reference analysis: How can it be done and does it make a difference?. Scientometrics 2009, 79(3):473-490.
29. Meho L.I., Rogers Y. Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(11):1711-1726.
30. Meho L.I., Sugimoto C.R. Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: A tale of two citation databases-Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(12):2499-2508.
31. Mongeon P., Paul-Hus A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 106(1):213-228.
32. Narin F., Carpenter M., Berlt N.C. Interrelationships of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1972, 23(5):323-331.
33. Neuhaus C., Daniel H.D. A new reference standard for citation analysis in chemistry and related fields based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts. Scientometrics 2008, 78(2):219-229.
34. Norris M., Oppenheim C. Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences' literature. Journal of Informetrics 2007, 1(2):161-169.
35. Porter A.L., Rafols I. Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics 2009, 81(3):719-745.
36. Porter A.L., Roessner D.J., Heberger A.E. How interdisciplinary is a given body of research?. Research Evaluation 2008, 17(4):273-282.
37. Pudovkin A.I., Garfield E. Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2002, 53(13):1113-1119.
38. Rafols I., Leydesdorff L. Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals: Perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(9):1823-1835.
39. Ruiz-Castillo J., Waltman L. Field-normalized citation impact indicators using algorithmically constructed classification systems of science. Journal of Informetrics 2015, 9(1):102-117.
40. Thijs B., Zhang L., Glänzel W. Bibliographic coupling and hierarchical clustering for the validation and improvement of subject-classification schemes. Scientometrics 2015, 105(3):1453-1467.
41. U.S.Nation Library of Medicine Medical subject heading (MeSH) 2015, Available online: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/mesh.html.
42. Van Eck N.J., Waltman L., Van Raan A.F.J., Klautz R.J.M., Peul W.C. Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research. PLoS ONE 2013, 8(4):e62395.
43. Waltman L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators 2015, arxiv:1507.02099.
44. Waltman L., Van Eck N.J. A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 63(12):2378-2392.
45. Wang J., Thijs B., Glänzel W. Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE 2015, 10(5):e0127298.
46. Zhang L., Janssens F., Liang L., Glänzel W. Journal cross-citation analysis for validation and improvement of journal-based subject classification in bibliometric research. Scientometrics 2010, 82(3):687-706.