1993
DOI: 10.1007/bf02016287
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring national output in physics: Delimitation problems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
10
0
1

Year Published

1995
1995
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
2
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Each paper is assigned individually to a field and subfield. Rinia et al (1993) found considerable differences between publication sets obtained by a journal classification scheme and a subject classification scheme, both in the numbers of publications and in the contents of publication sets. Although new methods to identify fields were developed -such as co-journal, cocitation and co-word analysis, these methods are little used to determine reference standards.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Each paper is assigned individually to a field and subfield. Rinia et al (1993) found considerable differences between publication sets obtained by a journal classification scheme and a subject classification scheme, both in the numbers of publications and in the contents of publication sets. Although new methods to identify fields were developed -such as co-journal, cocitation and co-word analysis, these methods are little used to determine reference standards.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Furthermore, the delimitation of fields by subject categories yields an incomplete picture of the output of a given field. Using the journal classification scheme, papers published in multidisciplinary and general journals are not assigned to a specific specialist field, and so with the delimitation of a given field, a considerable fraction of the relevant literature is not captured (Rinia, De Lange, & Moed, 1993). Consequently, reference 6 standards such as the FCSm indicator are based on only a fraction of papers effectively published in a field.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A detailed description of the CWTS data-system is given in MOED et al, (1995). Many researchers depend on corporate addresses in view of the increasing impact of studies about research that are centred on institutional domains (CARPENTER et al, 1988; MOED & VAN RAAN, 1988;SHRUM & MULLINS, 1988;DE BRUIN & MOED, 5 1993;RINIA et al, 1993;HERBERTZ & MÜLLER-HILL, 1995;MELIN & PERSSON, 1996;BOURKE & BUTLER, 1998; VAN DEN BERGHE et al, 1998;NOYONS et al, 1999;MÄHLCK & PERSSON, 2000;MOED, 2000;MOYA-ANEGÓN et al, 2004). Although manual processing will, to some extent, be inevitable for unifying and reformatting the institutional affiliations of authors, it is hoped that the new approach described here provides a means of overcoming the scattering of organization data, thereby facilitating data isolation and unification for later bibliometric analyses.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the case of scientific collaboration, the structure of the addresses makes it possible to study co-authorshipsa scientific document is institutionally co-authored if it has more than one author address, suggesting that the authors come from various institutions, department or other kinds of units -using main organizations, cities and countries as the unit of investigation (MELIN & PERSSON, 1996). Bibliometric studies of scientific collaboration, either within or among research groups or countries, are increasingly frequent (RINIA et al, 1993;HERBERTZ & MÜLLER-HILL, 1995; VAN DEN BERGHE et al, 1998;MOED, 2000). Thus, "for assessing international cooperation connections, unified addresses relating to institutes, cities, and countries are extremely important" (DE BRUIN & MOED, 1990, p. 76).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%