The accuracy of field classifications for journals in Scopus
-
Published:2024-01-08
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:0138-9130
-
Container-title:Scientometrics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Scientometrics
Author:
Thelwall MikeORCID, Pinfield StephenORCID
Abstract
AbstractJournal field classifications in Scopus are used for citation-based indicators and by authors choosing appropriate journals to submit to. Whilst prior research has found that Scopus categories are occasionally misleading, it is not known how this varies for different journal types. In response, we assessed whether specialist, cross-field and general academic journals sometimes have publication practices that do not match their Scopus classifications. For this, we compared the Scopus narrow fields of journals with the fields that best fit their articles’ titles and abstracts. We also conducted qualitative follow-up to distinguish between Scopus classification errors and misleading journal aims. The results show sharp field differences in the extent to which both cross-field and apparently specialist journals publish articles that match their Scopus narrow fields, and the same for general journals. The results also suggest that a few journals have titles and aims that do not match their contents well, and that some large topics spread themselves across many relevant fields. Thus, the likelihood that a journal’s Scopus narrow fields reflect its contents varies substantially by field (although without systematic field trends) and some cross-field topics seem to cause difficulties in appropriately classifying relevant journals. These issues undermine citation-based indicators that rely on journal-level classification and may confuse scholars seeking publishing venues.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Computer Science Applications,General Social Sciences
Reference24 articles.
1. Archambault, É., Beauchesne, O. H., & Caruso, J. (2011). Towards a multilingual, comprehensive and open scientific journal ontology. In Proceedings of the 13th International conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. University of Zululand: South Africa (pp. 66–77). 2. Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. 3. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Open University Press. 4. Beltagy, I., Lo, K., & Cohan, A. (2019). SciBERT: A pretrained language model for scientific text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10676 5. Börner, K., Klavans, R., Patek, M., Zoss, A. M., Biberstine, J. R., Light, R. P., & Boyack, K. W. (2012). Design and update of a classification system: The UCSD map of science. PLoS ONE, 7(7), e39464.
|
|