IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Mapping and classification of agriculture in Web of Science: other subject categories and research fields may benefit

Listed author(s):
  • Tomaz Bartol

    ()

    (University of Ljubljana)

  • Gordana Budimir

    (Institute of Information Science)

  • Primoz Juznic

    (University of Ljubljana)

  • Karmen Stopar

    (University of Ljubljana)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract Fields of science (FOS) can be used for the assessment of publishing patterns and scientific output. To this end, WOS JCR (Web of Science/Journal Citation Reports) subject categories are often mapped to Frascati-related OECD FOS (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). Although WOS categories are widely employed, they reflect agriculture (one of six major FOS) less comprehensively. Other fields may benefit from agricultural WOS mapping. The aim was to map all articles produced nationally (Slovenia) by agricultural research groups, over two decades, to their corresponding journals and categories in order to visualize the strength of links between the categories and scatter of articles, based on WOS-linked raw data in COBISS/SciMet portal (Co-operative Online Bibliographic System and Services/Science Metrics) and national CRIS—Slovenian Current Research Information System. Agricultural groups are mapped into four subfields: Forestry and Wood Science, Plant Production, Animal Production, and Veterinary Science. Food science is comprised as either plant- or animal-product-related. On average, 50 % of relevant articles are published outside the scope of journals mapped to WOS agricultural categories. The other half are mapped mostly to OECD Natural-, Medical- and Health Sciences, and Engineering-and-Technology. A few selected journals and principal categories account for an important part of all relevant documents (core). Even many core journals/categories as ascertained with power laws (Bradford’s law) are not mapped to agriculture. Research-evaluation based on these classifications may underestimate multidisciplinary dimensions of agriculture, affecting its position among scientific fields and also subsequent funding if established on such ranking.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-2071-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer & Akadémiai Kiadó in its journal Scientometrics.

    Volume (Year): 109 (2016)
    Issue (Month): 2 (November)
    Pages: 979-996

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:109:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2071-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2071-6
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.springer.com

    Web page: http://akkrt.hu/

    Order Information: Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    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. 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.
    4. Cova, Tânia F.G.G. & Jarmelo, Susana & Formosinho, Sebastião J. & de Melo, J. Sérgio Seixas & Pais, Alberto A.C.C., 2015. "Unsupervised characterization of research institutions with task-force estimation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 59-68.
    5. Pedro Albarrán & Ignacio Ortuño & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2011. "Average-based versus high- and low-impact indicators for the evaluation of scientific distributions," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 325-339, October.
    6. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2015. "Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 408-418.
    7. Diego Chavarro & Puay Tang & Ismael Rafols, 2014. "Interdisciplinarity and research on local issues: evidence from a developing country," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 195-209.
    8. Ruiz-Castillo, Javier & Waltman, Ludo, 2015. "Field-normalized citation impact indicators using algorithmically constructed classification systems of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 102-117.
    9. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrándiz & M. Dolores León, 2014. "Regional Scientific Production and Specialization in Europe: The Role of HERD," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(5), pages 949-974, May.
    10. Valderrama-Zurián, Juan-Carlos & Aguilar-Moya, Remedios & Melero-Fuentes, David & Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafael, 2015. "A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 570-576.
    11. Jun-Lin Ren & Peng-Hui Lyu & Xin-Mu Wu & Fei-Cheng Ma & Zhi-Zhang Wang & Gang Yang, 2013. "An Informetric Profile of Water Resources Management Literatures," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 27(13), pages 4679-4696, October.
    12. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    13. Thelwall, Mike & Fairclough, Ruth, 2015. "Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 263-272.
    14. Ludo Waltman & Clara Calero-Medina & Joost Kosten & Ed C.M. Noyons & Robert J.W. Tijssen & Nees Jan Eck & Thed N. Leeuwen & Anthony F.J. Raan & Martijn S. Visser & Paul Wouters, 2012. "The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2419-2432, December.
    15. Bourke, Paul & Butler, Linda, 1998. "Institutions and the map of science: matching university departments and fields of research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 711-718, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:109:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2071-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)

    or (Rebekah McClure)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.