Comparing journal and paper level classifications of science

The classification of science into disciplines is at the heart of bibliometric analyses. While most classifications systems are implemented at the journal level, their accuracy has been questioned, and paper-level classifications have been considered by many to be more precise. However, few studies investigated the difference between journal and the paper classification systems. This study addresses this gap by comparing the journal- and paper-level classifications for the same set of papers and journals. This isolates the effects of classification precision (i.e., journal- or paper-level) to reveal the extent of paper misclassification. Results show almost half of papers could be misclassified in journal classification systems. Given their importance in the construction and analysis of bibliometric indicators, more attention should be given to the robustness and accuracy of these disciplinary classifications schemes

Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus

Journal classification systems play an important role in bibliometric analyses. The two most important bibliographic databases, Web of Science and Scopus, each provide a journal classification system. However, no study has systematically investigated the accuracy of these classification systems. To examine and compare the accuracy of journal classification systems, we define two criteria on the basis of direct citation relations between journals and categories. We use Criterion I to select journals that have weak connections with their assigned categories, and we use Criterion II to identify journals that are not assigned to categories with which they have strong connections. If a journal satisfies either of the two criteria, we conclude that its assignment to categories may be questionable. Accordingly, we identify all journals with questionable classifications in Web of Science and Scopus. Furthermore, we perform a more in-depth analysis for the field of Library and Information Science to assess whether our proposed criteria are appropriate and whether they yield meaningful results. It turns out that according to our citation-based criteria Web of Science performs significantly better than Scopus in terms of the accuracy of its journal classification system

Mapping Patent Classifications: Portfolio and Statistical Analysis, and the Comparison of Strengths and Weaknesses

The Cooperative Patent Classifications (CPC) jointly developed by the European and US Patent Offices provide a new basis for mapping and portfolio analysis. This update provides an occasion for rethinking the parameter choices. The new maps are significantly different from previous ones, although this may not always be obvious on visual inspection. Since these maps are statistical constructs based on index terms, their quality--as different from utility--can only be controlled discursively. We provide nested maps online and a routine for portfolio overlays and further statistical analysis. We add a new tool for "difference maps" which is illustrated by comparing the portfolios of patents granted to Novartis and MSD in 2016.Comment: Scientometrics 112(3) (2017) 1573-1591; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2449-

Construction of a Pragmatic Base Line for Journal Classifications and Maps Based on Aggregated Journal-Journal Citation Relations

A number of journal classification systems have been developed in bibliometrics since the launch of the Citation Indices by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) in the 1960s. These systems are used to normalize citation counts with respect to field-specific citation patterns. The best known system is the so-called "Web-of-Science Subject Categories" (WCs). In other systems papers are classified by algorithmic solutions. Using the Journal Citation Reports 2014 of the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index (n of journals = 11,149), we examine options for developing a new system based on journal classifications into subject categories using aggregated journal-journal citation data. Combining routines in VOSviewer and Pajek, a tree-like classification is developed. At each level one can generate a map of science for all the journals subsumed under a category. Nine major fields are distinguished at the top level. Further decomposition of the social sciences is pursued for the sake of example with a focus on journals in information science (LIS) and science studies (STS). The new classification system improves on alternative options by avoiding the problem of randomness in each run that has made algorithmic solutions hitherto irreproducible. Limitations of the new system are discussed (e.g. the classification of multi-disciplinary journals). The system's usefulness for field-normalization in bibliometrics should be explored in future studies.Comment: accepted for publication in the Journal of Informetrics, 20 July 201

Measuring category intuitiveness in unconstrained categorization tasks

What makes a category seem natural or intuitive? In this paper, an unsupervised categorization task was employed to examine observer agreement concerning the categorization of nine different stimulus sets. The stimulus sets were designed to capture different intuitions about classification structure. The main empirical index of category intuitiveness was the frequency of the preferred classification, for different stimulus sets. With 169 participants, and a within participants design, with some stimulus sets the most frequent classification was produced over 50 times and with others not more than two or three times. The main empirical finding was that cluster tightness was more important in determining category intuitiveness, than cluster separation. The results were considered in relation to the following models of unsupervised categorization: DIVA, the rational model, the simplicity model, SUSTAIN, an Unsupervised version of the Generalized Context Model (UGCM), and a simple geometric model based on similarity. DIVA, the geometric approach, SUSTAIN, and the UGCM provided good, though not perfect, fits. Overall, the present work highlights several theoretical and practical issues regarding unsupervised categorization and reveals weaknesses in some of the corresponding formal models

Creating Open Source Geodemographic Classifications for Higher Education Applications

This paper explores the use of geodemographic classifications to investigate the social, economic and spatial dimensions of participation in higher education. Education is a public service that confers very significant and tangible benefits upon receiving individuals: as such, we argue that understanding the geodemography of educational opportunity requires an application-specific classification, that exploits under-used educational data sources. We develop a classification for the UK higher education sector, and apply it to the Gospel Oak area of London. We discuss the wider merits of sector specific applications of geodemographics, with particular reference to issues of public service provision