Missing author address information in Web of Science-An explorative study

Abstract Bibliometric analysis is increasingly used to evaluate and compare research performance across geographical regions. However, the problem of missing information from author addresses has not attracted sufficient attention from scholars and practitioners. This study probes the missing data problem in the three core journal citation databases of Web of Science (WoS). Our findings reveal that from 1900 to 2015 over one-fifth of the publications indexed in WoS have completely missing information from the address field. The magnitude of the problem varies greatly among time periods, citation databases, document types, and publishing languages. The problem is especially serious for research in the sciences and social sciences published before the early 1970s and remains significant for recent publications in the arts and humanities. Further examinations suggest that many records with completely missing address information do not represent scholarly research. Full-text scanning of a random sample reveals that about 40% of the missing address articles have some address information that is not indexed in WoS. This study also finds that the problem of partially missing address information for U.S. research has diminished dramatically since 1998. The paper ends by providing some discussion and tentative remedies.

[1]  Weishu Liu,et al.  Book reviews in academic journals: patterns and dynamics , 2016, Scientometrics.

[2]  Weishu Liu,et al.  The changing role of non‐English papers in scholarly communication: Evidence from Web of Science's three journal citation indexes , 2017, Learn. Publ..

[3]  Seamus Grimes,et al.  The emerging dynamic structure of national innovation studies: a bibliometric analysis , 2015, Scientometrics.

[4]  Dejian Yu,et al.  A scientometrics review on aggregation operator research , 2015, Scientometrics.

[5]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[6]  Xianwen Wang,et al.  Network structure of scientific collaborations between China and the EU member states , 2017, Scientometrics.

[7]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Regional analysis on Chinese scientific output , 2009, Scientometrics.

[8]  F. Benjamin Zhan,et al.  A bibliometric study of earthquake research: 1900–2010 , 2012, Scientometrics.

[9]  Yan Yan,et al.  How do collaborative features affect scientific output? Evidences from wind power field , 2014, Scientometrics.

[10]  Fiorenzo Franceschini,et al.  Empirical analysis and classification of database errors in Scopus and Web of Science , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[11]  Cristobal Young,et al.  Model Uncertainty and Robustness , 2017 .

[12]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[13]  Fiorenzo Franceschini,et al.  The museum of errors/horrors in Scopus , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[14]  Liang Zhang,et al.  Global biodiversity research during 1900–2009: a bibliometric analysis , 2011, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[15]  György Csomós,et al.  A spatial scientometric analysis of the publication output of cities worldwide , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[16]  Leo Egghe,et al.  The “own-language preference”: Measures of relative language self-citation , 1999, Scientometrics.

[17]  Jingjing Zhang,et al.  Language trends in nanoscience and technology: The case of Chinese-language publications , 2007, Scientometrics.

[18]  Guillermo Andrés Lemarchand,et al.  The long-term dynamics of co-authorship scientific networks: Iberoamerican countries (1973–2010) , 2012 .

[19]  James J. Heckman,et al.  1. The Scientific Model of Causality , 2005 .

[20]  Jan L. Youtie,et al.  Is there a clubbing effect underlying Chinese research citation Increases? , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[21]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Errors of omission and their implications for computing scientometric measures in evaluating the publishing productivity and impact of countries , 2009, Online Inf. Rev..

[22]  Y. Ho,et al.  Highly cited articles in biomass research: A bibliometric analysis , 2015 .

[23]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Evaluation of the highly-cited researchers’ database for a country: proposals for meaningful analyses on the example of Germany , 2015, Scientometrics.

[24]  Li Tang,et al.  Bibliometric fingerprints: name disambiguation based on approximate structure equivalence of cognitive maps , 2010, Scientometrics.

[25]  Li Tang,et al.  Funding acknowledgment analysis: Queries and caveats , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[26]  Jiang Li,et al.  Patterns and evolution of coauthorship in China’s humanities and social sciences , 2015, Scientometrics.

[27]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Globalisation of science in kilometres , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[28]  Philip Shapira,et al.  Funding acknowledgement analysis: an enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: the case of nanotechnology , 2011, Scientometrics.

[29]  H. Towbin,et al.  Electrophoretic transfer of proteins from polyacrylamide gels to nitrocellulose sheets: procedure and some applications. , 1979, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  Werner Marx,et al.  Special features of historical papers from the viewpoint of bibliometrics , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..