Abstract
The delimitation of a research field in bibliometric studies presents the problem of the diversity of subject classifications used in the sources of input and output data. Classification of documents according to thematic codes or keywords is the most accurate method, mainly used in specialised bibliographic or patent databases. Classification of journals in disciplines presents lower specificity, and some shortcomings as the change over time of both journals and disciplines and the increasing interdisciplinarity of research. Differences in the criteria in which input and output data classifications are based obliges to aggregate data in order to match them. Standardization of subject classifications emerges as an important point in bibliometric studies in order to allow international comparisons, although flexibility is needed to meet the needs of local studies.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
H.F. Moed, R.E. de Bruin, A.J. Nederhof, A.F.J. van Raan, R.J.W. Tijssen, State of the Art of Bibliometric Macro-Indicators, Commission of the European Communities. Luxembourg, 1992.
I. Gómez, J. Camí,La producción científica española en Biomedicina y Salud. Un estudio a través del Science Citation Index (1986–89), Report under contract FIS 90/4001. Madrid, 1992.
E. Noma,Subject Classification and Influence Weights for 3000 Journals, Research report under CHI and NIH contracts. Computer Horizons Inc. Research, New Jersey, 1986.
Catalogue des revues de Psychologie. CNRS, 1988.
I. Gómez, E. Sanz, A. Méndez, Utility of bibliometric analysis for research policy: a case study of Spanish research in neuroscience,Research Policy, 19 (1990) 457–466.
M. Bordons, F. García-Jover, S. Barrigón, Bibliometric analysis of publications of Spanish pharmacologists in the SCI (1984–89). Part 1. Contribution to the “Pharmacology & Pharmacy subfield”,Scientometrics, 24 (1992) 163–177.
M. Bordons, S. Barrigón, Bibliometric analysis of publications of spanish pharmacologists in the SCI (1984–89). Part II. Contribution to subfields other than “Pharmacology & Pharmacy”,Scientometrics, 25 (1992) 425–446.
A. Méndez, M.A. Insúa, I. Gómez, G. López, C. Refolio,Dinámica de la investigación multidisciplinar sobre nuevos materiales en España, CINDOC, Madrid, 1993.
J. Espinosa de los Monteros, F. Martínez, M.A. Toribio, E. Muñoz,El Programa Nacional de Nuevos Materiales en el período 1988–92. Su evaluación mediante una metodología dual. Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados, Madrid, 1994.
A. Pestaña, I. Gómez, M.T. Fernández, M.A. Zulueta, A. Méndez, Scientometric evaluation of R&D activities in medium-size institutions: a case study based on the Spanish Scientific Research Council (CSIC).Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Medford, Learned Information Inc, 1995. p. 425–434.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gómez, I., Bordons, M., Fernández, M.T. et al. Coping with the problem of subject classification diversity. Scientometrics 35, 223–235 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018480
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018480