IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v11y2023i4p51-d1296255.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dominant Characteristics of Subject Categories in a Multiple-Category Hierarchical Scheme: A Case Study of Scopus

Author

Listed:
  • Eungi Kim

    (Department of Library and Information Science, Keimyung University, 1095 Dalgubeoldaero, Dalseo-Gu, Daegu 42601, Republic of Korea)

  • Da-Yeong Jeong

    (Department of Library and Information Science, Keimyung University, 1095 Dalgubeoldaero, Dalseo-Gu, Daegu 42601, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

The Scopus journal classification method, known as All Science Journal Classification (ASJC), follows a hierarchical organization of subject categories: minor, major, and supergroups. At the minor level, journals are assigned to one or more subject categories. We refer to this classification scheme as a multiple-category hierarchical scheme. The objective of this study is to investigate the dominant characteristics of subject categories within the Scopus database and quantify their dominance using various subject indices. To conduct the study, we formulated a set of subject category indices, including the Number of Journals (J), Total Instances of Subject Categories (SC), Number of Unique Subject Categories (USC), and Dominance Index (DOMI). The results showed that high DOMI values in subject categories indicate specialization and limited associations with other fields. There were minimal correlations between DOMI and other subject category indices like J, SC, and USC, demonstrating their uniqueness and independence. The study also revealed that subject categories within the Health Sciences exhibited higher DOMI values and greater specialization compared to those in the Physical Sciences, indicating a pronounced dominance in Health Sciences minor categories. Finally, minor subject categories exhibited more variation in subject category indices compared to their upper-level subject categories, highlighting the intricate variations within the hierarchical system of the Scopus classification. These findings have implications for researchers, emphasizing the need to consider a subject category’s dominance and associations when selecting journals for their research.

Suggested Citation

  • Eungi Kim & Da-Yeong Jeong, 2023. "Dominant Characteristics of Subject Categories in a Multiple-Category Hierarchical Scheme: A Case Study of Scopus," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:11:y:2023:i:4:p:51-:d:1296255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/11/4/51/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/11/4/51/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Berndt Jesenko & Christian Schlögl, 2021. "The effect of web of science subject categories on clustering: the case of data-driven methods in business and economic sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6785-6801, August.
    2. Tomaz Bartol & Gordana Budimir & Doris Dekleva-Smrekar & Miro Pusnik & Primoz Juznic, 2014. "Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1491-1504, February.
    3. Ismael Rafols & Loet Leydesdorff, 2009. "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, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(9), pages 1823-1835, September.
    4. Wolfgang Glänzel & András Schubert, 2003. "A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(3), pages 357-367, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2018. "Are leaders really leading? Journals that are first in Web of Science subject categories in the context of their groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 111-130, April.
    2. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan Eck, 2012. "A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2378-2392, December.
    3. Xie, Yundong & Wu, Qiang & Zhang, Peng & Li, Xingchen, 2020. "Information Science and Library Science (IS-LS) journal subject categorisation and comparison based on editorship information," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    4. Lin Zhang & Beibei Sun & Fei Shu & Ying Huang, 2022. "Comparing paper level classifications across different methods and systems: an investigation of Nature publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7633-7651, December.
    5. Wolfram, Dietmar & Zhao, Yuehua, 2014. "A comparison of journal similarity across six disciplines using citing discipline analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 840-853.
    6. Tomaz Bartol & Gordana Budimir & Primoz Juznic & Karmen Stopar, 2016. "Mapping and classification of agriculture in Web of Science: other subject categories and research fields may benefit," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 979-996, November.
    7. Wei Du & Raymond Yiu Keung Lau & Jian Ma & Wei Xu, 2015. "A multi-faceted method for science classification schemes (SCSs) mapping in networking scientific resources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2035-2056, December.
    8. Leydesdorff, Loet & Bornmann, Lutz & Zhou, Ping, 2016. "Construction of a pragmatic base line for journal classifications and maps based on aggregated journal-journal citation relations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 902-918.
    9. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    10. H. Kent Baker & Satish Kumar & Kirti Goyal & Prashant Gupta, 2023. "International journal of finance and economics: A bibliometric overview," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 9-46, January.
    11. Yan, Erjia & Ding, Ying & Cronin, Blaise & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2013. "A bird's-eye view of scientific trading: Dependency relations among fields of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 249-264.
    12. Yan, Erjia, 2014. "Research dynamics: Measuring the continuity and popularity of research topics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 98-110.
    13. Loet Leydesdorff & Ping Zhou & Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "How can journal impact factors be normalized across fields of science? An assessment in terms of percentile ranks and fractional counts," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 96-107, January.
    14. Alona Zharova & Wolfgang K. Härdle & Stefan Lessmann, 2017. "Is Scientific Performance a Function of Funds?," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2017-028, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    15. Zhou, Ping & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2011. "Fractional counting of citations in research evaluation: A cross- and interdisciplinary assessment of the Tsinghua University in Beijing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 360-368.
    16. Shu, Fei & Julien, Charles-Antoine & Zhang, Lin & Qiu, Junping & Zhang, Jing & Larivière, Vincent, 2019. "Comparing journal and paper level classifications of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 202-225.
    17. Wang, Qi & Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 347-364.
    18. Loet Leydesdorff, 2013. "An evaluation of impacts in “Nanoscience & nanotechnology”: steps towards standards for citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 35-55, January.
    19. Caroline S. Wagner & Lin Zhang & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "A discussion of measuring the top-1% most-highly cited publications: quality and impact of Chinese papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1825-1839, April.
    20. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & Caroline S. Wagner, 2017. "Generating clustered journal maps: an automated system for hierarchical classification," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1601-1614, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:11:y:2023:i:4:p:51-:d:1296255. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.