Algorithmically generated subject categories based on citation relations: An empirical micro study using papers on overall water splitting and related topics

Abstract One important reason for the use of field categorization in bibliometrics is the necessity to make citation impact of papers published in different scientific fields comparable with each other. Raw citations are normalized by using field-categorization schemes to achieve comparable citation scores. There are different approaches to field categorization available. They can be broadly classified as intellectual and algorithmic approaches. A paper-based algorithmically constructed classification system (ACCS) was proposed which is based on citation relations. Using a few ACCS field-specific clusters, we investigate the discriminatory power of the ACCS. The micro study focusses on the topic ‘overall water splitting’ and related topics. The first part of the study investigates intellectually whether the ACCS is able to identify papers on overall water splitting reliably and validly. Next, we compare the ACCS with (1) a paper-based intellectual (INSPEC) classification and (2) a journal-based intellectual classification (Web of Science, WoS, subject categories). In the last part of our case study, we compare the average number of citations in selected ACCS clusters (on overall water splitting and related topics) with the average citation count of publications in WoS subject categories related to these clusters. The results of this micro study question the discriminatory power of the ACCS. We recommend larger follow-up studies on broad datasets.

[1]  John Ziman,et al.  "Post-Academic Science": Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms , 1996 .

[2]  John Ziman,et al.  Postacademic Science : Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms : Royal Society Medawar Lecture, 29 June 1995 , 2000 .

[3]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  The kaleidoscope of disciplinarity , 2015, J. Documentation.

[4]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Citation Analysis with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) using the Web of Knowledge: A new routine , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[5]  Bart De Moor,et al.  Hybrid clustering for validation and improvement of subject-classification schemes , 2009, Inf. Process. Manag..

[6]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Which Type of Citation Analysis Generates the Most Accurate Taxonomy of Scientific and Technical Knowledge? , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[7]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  A smart local moving algorithm for large-scale modularity-based community detection , 2013, The European Physical Journal B.

[8]  S. Rijcke,et al.  Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics , 2015, Nature.

[9]  Antonio Perianes-Rodríguez,et al.  A comparison of two ways of evaluating research units working in different scientific fields , 2015, Scientometrics.

[10]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Proposal of using scaling for calculating field-normalized citation scores , 2016 .

[11]  Peter Sjögårde,et al.  Granularity of algorithmically constructed publication-level classifications of research publications: Identification of topics , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[12]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[13]  Gaby Haddow,et al.  Misfits? Research classification in research evaluation: visualizing journal content within fields of research codes , 2013 .

[14]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  The normalization of citation counts based on classification systems , 2013, Publ..

[15]  Hanne Andersen,et al.  Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science. , 2016, Studies in history and philosophy of science.

[16]  Edward Brailsford Bright,et al.  THE INSTITUTION OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS , 2012 .

[17]  Qi Wang,et al.  Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[18]  K. Popper,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1960 .

[19]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere , 2008 .

[20]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals: Perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[21]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  A review of the literature on citation impact indicators , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[22]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  A review of theory and practice in scientometrics , 2015, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[23]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts? , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[24]  Hui Fang,et al.  Classifying Research Articles in Multidisciplinary Sciences Journals into Subject Categories , 2015 .

[25]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Source normalized indicators of citation impact: an overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison , 2012, Scientometrics.

[26]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[27]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management , 2015 .

[28]  Claudio Castellano,et al.  Rescaling citations of publications in Physics , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[29]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  On the causes of subject-specific citation rates in Web of Science , 2014, Scientometrics.

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

[31]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The Citation Impact of German Sociology Journals: Some Problems with the Use of Scientometric Indicators in Journal and Research Evaluations , 2015 .