IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wzbsse/fsii01307.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Nicht alle Zeitschriften haben das gleiche Gewicht - Der harte Kern der Wissenschaftskommunikation

Author

Listed:
  • Bonitz, Manfred
  • Scharnhorst, Andrea

Abstract

Zeitschriften spielen eine herausragende Rolle in der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation. Bibliometrische Analysen von wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften umfassen sowohl die Beschreibung und Bewertung einzelner Zeitschriften als auch statistische Analysen von Ensembles wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften. Beispiele für einfache bibliometrische Indikatoren auf Zeitschriftenebene sind die Größe einer Zeitschrift (Anzahl der Publikationen) und die Anzahl der Zitierungen. Der bekannteste daraus abgeleitete Indikator ist der Journalimpaktfaktor als durchschnittliche Zitationsrate eines Artikels in der entsprechenden Zeitschrift. Dieser Indikator wird häufig zur Bewertung einer Zeitschrift herangezogen. Der Impaktfaktor steht für die Wahrnehmung einer Zeitschrift im Raum wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation. Diese wird letztlich von der Qualität der in der Zeitschrift erscheinenden Artikel bestimmt. Statistische Analysen von Zeitschriftengruppen führen in der Regel auf schiefe Verteilungen bibliometrischer Indikatoren, z. B. das Bradfordsche Gesetz. Die vorliegende Arbeit behandelt das Phänomen der Verteilung von Zitierungen, die eine Zeitschrift erhält, auf die Länder, die in dieser Zeitschrift publizieren. Die unterschiedliche Teilhabe von Ländern an dem Renommee einer Zeitschrift wird durch einen neuen Indikator - die Anzahl der Matthäus-Zitierungen - charakterisiert. Im ersten Teil der Arbeit wird in die neue Untersuchungsmethodik didaktisch eingeführt. In einem zweiten Teil werden empirische Analysen vorgestellt. Dabei wird die Verteilung des neuen Indikators innerhalb eines umfangreichen Zeitschriftenensembles analysiert und anderen Indikatoren gegenübergestellt. Wir halten die Anzahl der Matthäus-Zitierungen in einer Zeitschrift für einen Ausdruck des Wettbewerbs von Ländern um Wahrnehmung in der internationalen wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation. Die empirische Analyse zeigt, dass dieser Wettbewerb sich vorrangig in einer relativ kleinen Gruppe von Zeitschriften, den Matthäus- Kernzeitschriften, vollzieht. Diese Zeitschriften nehmen eine besondere Stellung in der internationalen Wissenschaftskommunikation ein.

Suggested Citation

  • Bonitz, Manfred & Scharnhorst, Andrea, 2001. "Nicht alle Zeitschriften haben das gleiche Gewicht - Der harte Kern der Wissenschaftskommunikation," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Standard-setting and Environment FS II 01-307, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbsse:fsii01307
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/48964/1/341379832.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bihui Jin & Bing Wang, 1999. "Chinese science citation database: Its construction and application," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 45(2), pages 325-332, June.
    2. Katz, J. Sylvan, 1999. "The self-similar science system1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 501-517, June.
    3. Manfred Bonitz & Andrea Scharnhorst, 2001. "Competition in science and the Matthew core journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 37-54, April.
    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. Hajar Sotudeh & Abbas Horri, 2009. "Countries positioning in open access journals system: An investigation of citation distribution patterns," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(1), pages 7-31, October.
    2. Lemarchand, Guillermo A., 2012. "The long-term dynamics of co-authorship scientific networks: Iberoamerican countries (1973–2010)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 291-305.
    3. Henk F. Moed, 2002. "Measuring China"s research performance using the Science Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(3), pages 281-296, March.
    4. Liming Liang & Junwan Liu & Ronald Rousseau, 2004. "Name order patterns of graduate candidates and supervisors in Chinese publications: A case study of three major Chinese universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(1), pages 3-18, September.
    5. Leporia, Benedetto & Geuna, Aldo & Mira, Antonietta, 2018. "Scientific Output of US and European Universities Scales Super-linearly with Resources," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201806, University of Turin.
    6. Rafael Aleixandre & Juan Carlos Valderrama & José María Desantes & Antonio J. Torregrosa, 2004. "Identification of information sources and citation patterns in the field of reciprocating internal combustion engines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(3), pages 321-336, March.
    7. Giancarlo Ruocco & Cinzia Daraio, 2013. "An empirical approach to compare the performance of heterogeneous academic fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 601-625, December.
    8. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    9. Olga Moskaleva & Vladimir Pislyakov & Ivan Sterligov & Mark Akoev & Svetlana Shabanova, 2018. "Russian Index of Science Citation: Overview and review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 449-462, July.
    10. Li, Menghui & Yang, Liying & Zhang, Huina & Shen, Zhesi & Wu, Chensheng & Wu, Jinshan, 2017. "Do mathematicians, economists and biomedical scientists trace large topics more strongly than physicists?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 598-607.
    11. Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote & Felipe Zapico-Alonso & María Eugenia Espinosa-Calvo & Rocío Gómez-Crisóstomo & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2007. "Import-export of knowledge between scientific subject categories: The iceberg hypothesis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(3), pages 423-441, June.
    12. Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo, 2017. "The effect of document types and sizes on the scaling relationship between citations and co-authorship patterns in management journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1191-1207, March.
    13. Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo, 2020. "The performance of Latin American research on economics & business," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 573-590, January.
    14. Jacqueline Leta & Hernan Chaimovich, 2002. "Recognition and international collaboration: the Brazilian case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(3), pages 325-335, March.
    15. Tol, Richard S.J., 2013. "The Matthew effect for cohorts of economists," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 522-527.
    16. Albarrán, Pedro & Crespo, Juan A. & Ortuño, Ignacio & Ruiz-Castillo, Javier, 2009. "A comparison of the scientific performance of the U. S. and the European Union at the turn of the XXI century," UC3M Working papers. Economics we095534, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    17. Bihui Jin & Jiangong Zhang & Dingquan Chen & Xianyou Zhu, 2002. "Development of the Chinese Scientometric Indicators (CSI)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(1), pages 145-154, April.
    18. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    19. Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo, 2017. "The citation-based impact of complex innovation systems scales with the size of the system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 141-151, July.
    20. Hajar Sotudeh & Abbas Horri, 2008. "Great expectations: The role of Open Access in improving countries’ recognition," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(1), pages 69-93, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:wzbsse:fsii01307. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wzbbbde.html .

    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.