Science-metrix develops new journals classification system (and interactive webtool) using both the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) and Scopus (Elsevier).

sciencemetrix explorerA new set of tools recently released (first public release: 2010-12-01 (v1.00)) by Science-Metrix Inc. seeks to improve the way we talk about and understand science. The US/Canada-based research evaluation firm has developed a new, multi-lingual (18 languages!) classification of scientific journals, which is accompanied by an interactive web tool.  The journal classification, which covers 15,000 peer-reviewed scientific journals, is translated by more than 22 international experts who volunteered their time and expertise, making the tools available to a worldwidScience-metrix logoe audience.  The complete journals list is available for download as excel sheet.

The interactive ‘Scientific Journals Ontology Explorer’ allows users to visualise the links between 175 scientific specialties (subject categories) in 18 languages, from Arabic to Swedish.

The visualization contains 3 different views: a circular “Subfield Citation Wheel” (representing both citations as well as references), a “Field Citation Wheel” (showing the links between distinct scientific disciplines) and a network “Map of Science” (revealing similarities between disciplines by relative distance). The goal of this visualization is to show people how science spans a broad universe and how interlinked scientific research actually is.

How is the field of Business & Management covered in the journals list?

The field of  Economics & Business (as part of the domain Economic & Social Sciences) contains 822 journals (this is 5,4% of he total Science metrix list)  in 12 subfields, where Business & Management is included with 222 journals (27%):

Every journal is classified into only one category.

Subfields of ‘Economics & Business’ N %
Accounting 32 3,9%
Agricultural Economics & Policy 27 3,3%
Business & Management 222 27,0%
Development Studies 42 5,1%
Econometrics 13 1,6%
Economic Theory 13 1,6%
Economics 244 29,7%
Finance 63 7,7%
Industrial Relations 21 2,6%
Logistics & Transportation 49 6,0%
Marketing 61 7,4%
Sport, Leisure & Tourism 35 4,3%
Total Journals 822 100%

I will compare these with our ERIM Journals list, the ISI quartiles and the SJR (scopus) quartiles scores to see how the list is structured in terms of quality layers.

(I wil add these details later this week.)

In the ontology browser, you can create a map of science and learn how the field of business and management is connected to other subject categories. I have selected the closest fields in the screenshot below.

business and management in science metrix

About Science-Metrix:

Science-Metrix is the world’s largest independent firm dedicated to scientometrics, technometrics, and science and technology (S&T) evaluation. The firm’s core business involves supporting evidence-based decision-making with strong empirical data and sound theoretical approaches. This contract research organization combines qualitative and quantitative techniques to deliver high quality program evaluations, performance and outcome assessments, and evaluation frameworks. Every Science-Metrix report is produced by a team of dedicated high-calibre experts and relies on the world-class data found in the Scopus, Web of Science and Questel databases.

Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age

Here is a new book from NAP Committee on Ensuring the Utility and Integrity of Research Data in a Digital Age;

National Academy of Sciences

As digital technologies are expanding the power and reach of research, they are also
raising complex issues. These include complications in ensuring the validity of research
data; standards that do not keep pace with the high rate of innovation; restrictions on data
sharing that reduce the ability of researchers to verify results and build on previous
research; and huge increases in the amount of data being generated, creating severe
challenges in preserving that data for long-term use.
Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility,
and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age examines the consequences of the
changes affecting research data with respect to three issues – integrity, accessibility, and
stewardship-and finds a need for a new approach to the design and the management of
research projects. The report recommends that all researchers receive appropriate
training in the management of research data, and calls on researchers to make all
research data, methods, and other information underlying results publicly accessible in a
timely manner. The book also sees the stewardship of research data as a critical
long-term task for the research enterprise and its stakeholders. Individual researchers,
research institutions, research sponsors, professional societies, and journals involved in
scientific, engineering, and medical research will find this book an essential guide to the
principles affecting research data in the digital age.

Front Matter i-xvi
Summary 1-10 (skim)
1 Research Data in the Digital Age 11-32 (skim)
2 Ensuring the Integrity of Research Data 33-58 (skim)
3 Ensuring Access to Research Data 59-94 (skim)
4 Promoting the Stewardship of Research Data 95-114 (skim)
5 Defining Roles and Responsibilities 115-120 (skim)
Appendix A: Biographical Information on the Members of the Committee on Ensuring the Utility and Integrity of Research Data in a Digital Age 121-132 (skim)
Appendix B: Relevant National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council Reports 133-142 (skim)
Appendix C: Letters from Scientific Journals Requesting the Study 143-154 (skim)
Index 155-162 (skim)

A New Era in Citation and Bibliometric Analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar

Lokman I. Meho and Kiduk Yang
School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, 2007


Academic institutions, federal agencies, publishers, editors, authors, and librarians increasingly rely on citation analysis for making hiring, promotion, tenure, funding, and/or reviewer and journal evaluation and selection decisions. The Institute for Scientific Information’s (ISI) citation databases have been used for decades as a starting point and often as the only tools for locating citations and/or conducting citation analyses. ISI databases (or Web of Science), however, may no longer be adequate as the only or even the main sources of citations because new databases and tools that allow citation searching are now available. Whether these new databases and tools complement or represent alternatives to Web of Science (WoS) is important to explore. Using a group of 15 library and information science faculty members as a case study, this paper examines the effects of using Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) on the citation counts and rankings of scholars as measured by WoS. The paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of WoS, Scopus, and GS, their overlap and uniqueness, quality and language of the citations, and the implications of the findings for citation analysis. The project involved citation searching for approximately 1,100 scholarly works published by the study group and over 200 works by a test group (an additional 10 faculty members). Overall, more than 10,000 citing and purportedly citing documents were examined. WoS data took about 100 hours of collecting and processing time, Scopus consumed 200 hours, and GS a grueling 3,000 hours.

Conclusions by the authors:

The study found that the addition of Scopus citations to those of WoS could significantly alter the ranking of scholars. The study also found that GS stands out in its coverage of conference proceedings as well as international, non-English language journals, among others. GS also indexes a wide variety of document types, some of which may be of significant value to researchers. The use of Scopus and GS, in addition to WoS, reveals a more comprehensive and accurate picture of the extent of the scholarly relationship between LIS and other fields, as evidenced by the unique titles that cite LIS literature (e.g., titles from Cognitive Science, Computer Science, Education, and Engineering, to name only a few). Significantly, this study has demonstrated that:

  1. Although WoS remains an indispensable citation database, it should not be used alone for locating citations to an author or title, and, by extension, journals, departments, and countries; Scopus should be used concurrently.
  2. Although Scopus provides more comprehensive citation coverage of LIS and LIS-related literature than WoS for the period 1996-2005, the two databases complement rather than replace each other.
  3. While both Scopus and GS help identify a considerable number of citations not found in WoS, only Scopus significantly alters the ranking of scholars as measured by WoS.
    Although GS unique citations are not of the same quality as those found in WoS or Scopus, they could be very useful in showing evidence of broader international impact than could possibly be done through the two proprietary databases.
  4. GS value for citation searching purposes is severely diminished by its inherent problems. GS data are not limited to refereed, high quality journals and conference proceedings. GS is also very cumbersome to use and needs significant improvement in the way it displays search results and the downloading capabilities it offers for it to become a useful tool for large-scale citation analyses.
  5. Given the low overlap or high uniqueness between the three tools, they may all be necessary to develop more accurate maps or visualizations of scholarly networks and impact both within and between disciplines (Börner, Chen, & Boyack, 2003; Börner, Sanyal, & Vespignani, 2006; Small, 1999; White & McCain, 1997).
  6. Each database or tool requires specific search strategy(ies) in order to collect citation data, some more accurately and quickly (i.e., WoS and Scopus) than others (i.e., GS).

(Accepted for publication in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology)

HISTCITE™; Bibiliographic Analysis and Visualization Software

HistCite is a flexible software solution to aid researchers in visualizing the results of literature searches in the Web of Science. It is easy, fast, and provides perspectives and information not available from the Web of Science.

HistCite can create clear and informative data tables and graphs in an HTML format readable in a web browser. Go here see examples of HistCite output. HistCite also outputs data in tables and publication-quality graphs.

HistCite is a software implementation of algorithmic historiography, and has been developed by Dr Eugene Garfield, founder of the Institute for Scientific Information and the inventor of citation analysis. Go here for a bibliography of papers on algorithmic historiography.

HistCite software is scheduled for commercial release in early 2007. If you want to learn more about HistCite and to get information about when it becomes available, please use the feedback form.

Click here for a Flash demo of the main features of HistCite.

What Can I Do With HistCite?

HistCite has many applications. Here are some of them:

Identify the key literature in a research field
By analyzing the results of a keyword search you can identify:

  • papers important to the development of the topic

  • important papers “missed” by your keyword search

  • most prolific and most cited authors and journals

  • other keywords that can be used to expand the collection

Analyze publication productivity and citation rates within a collection of research papers
Compare characteristics such as:

  • countries and institutions that authors publish from

  • most prolific and most cited authors within the groups

  • citation statistics for groups and subgroups (mean and median citation rates of papers, number of authors per paper, etc.)

Reconstruct the history and development of a research field
Analyze the content of an author search and you can find:

  • highly cited articles

  • important co-author relationships

  • earlier publications and documents important to the development of the author’s work

  • time line of the authors’ publications

  • view historiographs showing the key papers and timeline of a research field.

Author Affiliation Index (AAI); the pattern of authorship/coauthorship across journals

Although this recent study by Chen en Huan (Journal of Corporate Finance 2007) is focused on the field of Finance, the concept of AAI is valuable for all fields of management research. The AAI is calculated as the ratio of articles authored by faculty at the world’s top 80 finance programs divided by the total number of articles by all authors. It provides provides academics with a credible alternative measurement of journal quality, in ddition to the traditional survey-based and citation-based journal ratings.


In this paper we use a new method to rank finance journals and study the pattern of authorship/coauthorship
across journals. Defined as the ratio of articles authored by faculty at the world’s top 80 finance
programs to the total number of articles by all authors, the Author Affiliation Index is a cost-effective and
intuitively easy-to-understand approach to journal rankings. Forty-one finance journals are ranked
according to this index. If properly constructed, the Author Affiliation Index provides an easy and credible
way to supplement the existing journal ranking methods. Our ranking system reveals the journal–researcher
clientele, and we find that collaboration (co-authoring) between faculty within elite programs exists only in
top-tier and near-top-tier journals. Publications in lower-tier journals by researchers of elite programs are
driven by their co-authors. Collaboration between faculty in elite and non-elite programs, however, is more
prevalent than that within elite programs across all tiers of journals. Co-authorship among top 80 programs,
nevertheless, is more common in top-tier journals, while co-authorship between top 80 and other programs
is more dominant in lower-ranked journals.

RSS Business School News

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Locations of Site Visitors
%d bloggers like this: