IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i1d10.1007_s11192-022-04576-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A logical set theory approach to journal subject classification analysis: intra-system irregularities and inter-system discrepancies in Web of Science and Scopus

Author

Listed:
  • Shir Aviv-Reuven

    (Bar-Ilan University)

  • Ariel Rosenfeld

    (Bar-Ilan University)

Abstract

Journal classification into subject categories is an important aspect in scholarly research evaluation as well as in bibliometric analysis. However, this classification is not standardized, resulting in several different journal subject classification systems. In this study, we adopt a logical set theory-based definition of irregularities within a given classification system and discrepancies between systems and investigate their prevalence in the two most widely used indexing services of Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. In both systems, we identify unusually sized categories, high overlap and incohesiveness between categories. In addition, across the two systems, journals are systematically classified to a different number of categories and most categories in either system are not adequately represented in the other system. Our findings suggest that these irregularities and discrepancies are, in fact, non-anecdotal and thus cannot be easily disregarded. Consequently, potentially misguided and/or inconsistent outcomes may be encountered when relying on these subject classification systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Shir Aviv-Reuven & Ariel Rosenfeld, 2023. "A logical set theory approach to journal subject classification analysis: intra-system irregularities and inter-system discrepancies in Web of Science and Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 157-175, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04576-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04576-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04576-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-022-04576-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leo Egghe & Ronald Rousseau, 2002. "A proposal to define a core of a scientific subject: A definition using concentration and fuzzy sets," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(1), pages 51-62, April.
    2. Zhang, Lin & Liu, Xinhai & Janssens, Frizo & Liang, Liming & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2010. "Subject clustering analysis based on ISI category classification," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 185-193.
    3. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Vivek Kumar Singh & Prashasti Singh & Mousumi Karmakar & Jacqueline Leta & Philipp Mayr, 2021. "The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5113-5142, June.
    6. Perianes-Rodriguez, Antonio & Ruiz-Castillo, Javier, 2017. "A comparison of the Web of Science and publication-level classification systems of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 32-45.
    7. Judit Bar-Ilan, 2008. "Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 257-271, February.
    8. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas, 2016. "Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 787-804, February.
    9. Lokman I. Meho & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2009. "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, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(12), pages 2499-2508, December.
    10. Philippe Mongeon & Adèle Paul-Hus, 2016. "The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 213-228, January.
    11. Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. A. García & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2014. "Evolutionary games between subject categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 869-888, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Correction to: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 907-908, January.
    14. Loet Leydesdorff & Stephen Carley & Ismael Rafols, 2013. "Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 589-593, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Subochev, Andrey & Aleskerov, Fuad & Pislyakov, Vladimir, 2018. "Ranking journals using social choice theory methods: A novel approach in bibliometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 416-429.
    17. Bar-Ilan, Judit & Levene, Mark & Lin, Ayelet, 2007. "Some measures for comparing citation databases," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 26-34.
    18. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann, 2016. "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 & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(3), pages 707-714, March.
    19. Rons, Nadine, 2012. "Partition-based Field Normalization: An approach to highly specialized publication records," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10.
    20. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico & Mastrogiacomo, Luca, 2016. "Empirical analysis and classification of database errors in Scopus and Web of Science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 933-953.
    21. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 871-906, January.
    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. Michael Gusenbauer, 2022. "Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2683-2745, May.
    2. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    3. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    4. Gordana Budimir & Sophia Rahimeh & Sameh Tamimi & Primož Južnič, 2021. "Comparison of self-citation patterns in WoS and Scopus databases based on national scientific production in Slovenia (1996–2020)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2249-2267, March.
    5. Junwen Zhu & Weishu Liu, 2020. "A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 321-335, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Rui Liang & Xichuan Zheng & Po-Hsun Wang & Jia Liang & Linhui Hu, 2023. "Research Progress of Carbon-Neutral Design for Buildings," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-50, August.
    8. Gerson Pech & Catarina Delgado, 2020. "Percentile and stochastic-based approach to the comparison of the number of citations of articles indexed in different bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 223-252, April.
    9. Gerson Pech & Catarina Delgado, 2020. "Assessing the publication impact using citation data from both Scopus and WoS databases: an approach validated in 15 research fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 909-924, November.
    10. Steve J. Bickley & Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in the field of economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2055-2084, April.
    11. Adriana Ana Maria Davidescu & Margareta-Stela Florescu & Liviu Cosmin Mosora & Mihaela Hrisanta Mosora & Eduard Mihai Manta, 2022. "A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Publications of the Bucharest University of Economic Studies in Time of Pandemics: Implications for Teachers’ Professional Publishing Activity," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-36, July.
    12. Fernando Morante-Carballo & Néstor Montalván-Burbano & Maribel Aguilar-Aguilar & Paúl Carrión-Mero, 2022. "A Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Research on Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-29, July.
    13. Vivek Kumar Singh & Prashasti Singh & Mousumi Karmakar & Jacqueline Leta & Philipp Mayr, 2021. "The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5113-5142, June.
    14. Weishu Liu & Meiting Huang & Haifeng Wang, 2021. "Same journal but different numbers of published records indexed in Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection: causes, consequences, and solutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4541-4550, May.
    15. Ana Batlles-delaFuente & Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña & José Antonio Plaza-Úbeda & Emilio Abad-Segura, 2021. "Sustainable Business Model in the Product-Service System: Analysis of Global Research and Associated EU Legislation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-33, September.
    16. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Alternative medicines worth researching? Citation analyses of acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, and osteopathy 1996–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8731-8747, October.
    17. Parul Khurana & Kiran Sharma, 2022. "Impact of h-index on author’s rankings: an improvement to the h-index for lower-ranked authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4483-4498, August.
    18. Martin-Martin, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Harzing, Anne-Wil & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2017. "Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 152-163.
    19. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "The open access citation premium may depend on the openness and inclusiveness of the indexing database, but the relationship is controversial because it is ambiguous where the open access boundary lie," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 995-1018, November.
    20. Emilio Abad-Segura & Ana Batlles-delaFuente & Mariana-Daniela González-Zamar & Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña, 2021. "Implications for Sustainability of the Joint Application of Bioeconomy and Circular Economy: A Worldwide Trend Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-24, June.

    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:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04576-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.