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

Haunschild, Robin; Schier, Hermann; Marx, Werner; Bornmann, Lutz

doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.004

Cited by 20 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of studies frame this research as discipline/field delineation or delimitation (Gläser, Glänzel, & Scharnhorst, 2017;Gómez, Bordons, Fernandez, & Méndez, 1996;López-Illescas, Noyons, Visser, De Moya-Anegón, & Moed, 2009;Zitt, 2015). The search for adequate solutions to classification has intensified in recent years, often motivated by finding appropriate reference sets for citation normalization needed for evaluation studies (Bornmann, 2014;Glänzel & Schubert, 2003;Haunschild, Schier, Marx, & Bornmann, 2018;Leydesdorff & Bornmann, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical method to reclassify Web of Science articles into unique subject categories and broad disciplines

Milojević

2020

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classification of bibliographic items into subjects and disciplines in large databases is essential for many quantitative science studies. The Web of Science classification of journals into ~250 subject categories, which has served as a basis for many studies, is known to have some fundamental problems and several practical limitations that may affect the results from such studies. Here we present an easily reproducible method to perform reclassification of the Web of Science into existing subject categories and into 14 broad areas. Our reclassification is at a level of articles, so it preserves disciplinary differences that may exist among individual articles published in the same journal. Reclassification also eliminates ambiguous (multiple) categories that are found for 50% of items, and assigns a discipline/field category to all articles that come from broad-coverage journals such as Nature and Science. The correctness of the assigned subject categories is evaluated manually and is found to be ~95%.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical method to reclassify Web of Science articles into unique subject categories and broad disciplines

Milojević

2020

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, direct citation is still often used to group publications thematically, i.e. used the same way as bibliographic coupling or co-citation, if only the data set is large enough (Boyack & Klavans, 2010;Haunschild et al, 2018;Klavans & Boyack, 2017b;Shibata et al, 2009).…”

Section: Data Models Unrelated To Topics As Shared Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 The second strategy makes direct use of expert validation (as e.g. in Chumachenko et al, 2020;Haunschild et al, 2018), and the third strategy compares the results to other, 'trustful' classification systems such as PubMed's Medical Subject Headings, which are created by experts (e.g. Ahlgren et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges to the validity of topic reconstruction

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we utilize an opportunity to construct ground truths for topics in the field of atomic, molecular and optical physics. Our research questions in this paper focus on (i) how to construct a ground truth for topics and (ii) the suitability of common algorithms applied to bibliometric networks to reconstruct these topics. We use the ground truths to test two data models (direct citation and bibliographic coupling) with two algorithms (the Leiden algorithm and the Infomap algorithm). Our results are discomforting: none of the four combinations leads to a consistent reconstruction of the ground truths. No combination of data model and algorithm simultaneously reconstructs all micro-level topics at any resolution level. Meso-level topics are not reconstructed at all. This suggests (a) that we are currently unable to predict which combination of data model, algorithm and parameter setting will adequately reconstruct which (types of) topics, and (b) that a combination of several data models, algorithms and parameter settings appears to be necessary to reconstruct all or most topics in a set of papers.

show abstract

“…The approach does not lead to stable results, and it is elusive why the field assignment of a paper should change. Further critical remarks can be found in Haunschild, Schier, et al (2018). Based on the critique of the system proposed by Waltman and van Eck (2012), Colliander and Ahlgren (2019) introduced an item-oriented approach that avoids clustering, but uses publicationlevel features to estimate subject similarities.…”

Section: Literature Overview: a Short History Of Field Normalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

How can citation impact in bibliometrics be normalized? A new approach combining citing-side normalization and citation percentiles

Bornmann

2020

Quantitative Science Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 1980s, many different methods have been proposed to field-normalize citations. In this study, an approach is introduced that combines two previously introduced methods: citing-side normalization and citation percentiles. The advantage of combining two methods is that their advantages can be integrated in one solution. Based on citing-side normalization, each citation is field weighted and, therefore, contextualized in its field. The most important advantage of citing-side normalization is that it is not necessary to work with a specific field categorization scheme for the normalization procedure. The disadvantages of citing-side normalization – the calculation is complex and the numbers are elusive – can be compensated by calculating percentiles based on weighted citations that result from citing-side normalization. On the one hand, percentiles are easy to understand: they are the percentage of papers published in the same year with a lower citation impact. On the other, weighted citation distributions are skewed distributions with outliers. Percentiles are well-suited to assigning the position of a focal paper in such distributions of comparable papers. The new approach of calculating percentiles based on weighted citations is demonstrated in this study on the basis of a citation impact comparison between several countries.

show abstract

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

Cited by 20 publications

References 26 publications

Practical method to reclassify Web of Science articles into unique subject categories and broad disciplines

Practical method to reclassify Web of Science articles into unique subject categories and broad disciplines

Challenges to the validity of topic reconstruction

How can citation impact in bibliometrics be normalized? A new approach combining citing-side normalization and citation percentiles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About