Correcting glasses help fair comparisons in international science landscape: Country indicators as a function of ISI database delineation

The increasing use of bibliometric indicators in science policy calls for a reassessment of their robustness and limits. The perimeter of journal inclusion within ISI databases will determine variations in the classic bibliometric indicators used for international comparison, such as world shares of publications or relative impacts. We show in this article that when this perimeter is adjusted using a natural criterion for inclusion of journals, the journal impact, the variation of the most common country indicators (publication and citation shares; relative impacts) with the perimeter chosen depends on two phenomena. The first one is a bibliometric regularity rooted in the main features of competition in the open space of science, that can be modeled by bibliometric laws, the parameters of which are “coverage-independent” indicators. But this regularity is obscured for many countries by a second phenomenon, the presence of a sub-population of journals that does not reflect the same international openness, the nationally-oriented journals. As a result indicators based on standard SCI or SCISearch perimeters are jeopardized to a certain extent by this sub-population which creates large irregularities. These irregularities often lead to an over-estimation of share and an under-estimation of the impact, for countries with national editorial tradition, while the impact of a few mainstream countries arguably benefits from the presence of this sub-population.

[1]  Michel Zitt,et al.  The transition from “national” to “transnational” model and related measures of countries' performance , 1998 .

[2]  Leo Egghe,et al.  The exact place of Zipf's and Pareto's law amongst the classical informetric laws , 2005, Scientometrics.

[3]  E. Garfield,et al.  Citation indexes for science. , 1956, Science.

[4]  Ronald N. Kostoff Citation analysis cross-field normalization: A new paradigm , 2006, Scientometrics.

[5]  Abraham Bookstein Informetric distributions, part II: Resilience to ambiguity , 1990 .

[6]  Tibor Braun,et al.  Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact , 1986, Scientometrics.

[7]  Aparna Basu,et al.  Science publication indicators for India: Questions of interpretation , 1999, Scientometrics.

[8]  Michael Gibbons,et al.  Science's new social contract with society , 1999, Nature.

[9]  E. Garfield Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. 1955. , 1955, International journal of epidemiology.

[10]  S. D. Haitun,et al.  Stationary scientometric distributions , 1982, Scientometrics.

[11]  Michael J. Moravcsik,et al.  Variation of the nature of citation measures with journals and scientific specialties , 1978, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[12]  J. ANTHONYF. Competition amongst scientists for publication status: Toward a model of scientific publication and citation distributions , 2001 .

[13]  Andrea Scharnhorst,et al.  The matthew index—Concentration patterns and Matthew core journals , 1999, Scientometrics.

[14]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Internationalization of scientific journals: A measurement based on publication and citation scope , 2006, Scientometrics.

[15]  Michel Zitt,et al.  The Transition from "National" to "Transnational" Model and Related Measures of Countries' Performance , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[16]  M. Moravcsik,et al.  The coverage of science in the thrid world : The "Philadelphia program" , 1988 .

[17]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Competition amongst scientists for publication status:Toward a model of scientific publication and citation distributions , 2001, Scientometrics.

[18]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequencesfor international comparisons of national research performance , 2001, Scientometrics.

[19]  J. Sylvan Katz,et al.  The Self-similar Science System , 1995 .

[20]  S. D. Haitun,et al.  Stationary scientometric distributions , 1982, Scientometrics.

[21]  Anne Sigogneau,et al.  An Analysis of Document Types Published in Journals Related to Physics: Proceeding Papers Recorded in the Science Citation Index Database , 2000, Scientometrics.

[22]  Tibor Braun,et al.  Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators , 1996, Scientometrics.

[23]  Irene Wormell,et al.  Informetric analysis of the international impact of scientific journals: how "international" are the international journals? , 1998, J. Documentation.

[24]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The delineation of specialties in terms of journals using the dynamic journal set of the SCI , 2005, Scientometrics.

[25]  R. N. Kostoff THE UNDER-REPORTING OF RESEARCH IMPACT , 1998 .

[26]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Differences in the construction of sci based bibliometric indicators among various producers: A first over view , 1996, Scientometrics.

[27]  Derek de Solla Price,et al.  A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes , 1976, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[28]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Internationalization of communication a view on the evolution of scientific journals , 1999, Scientometrics.

[29]  R. Barr The Agora model of innovation systems: S&T indicators for a democratic knowledge society , 2001 .

[30]  Abraham Bookstein,et al.  Informetric distributions, part II: Resilience to ambiguity , 1990, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..