Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping and classification of agriculture in Web of Science: other subject categories and research fields may benefit

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fields of science (FOS) can be used for the assessment of publishing patterns and scientific output. To this end, WOS JCR (Web of Science/Journal Citation Reports) subject categories are often mapped to Frascati-related OECD FOS (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). Although WOS categories are widely employed, they reflect agriculture (one of six major FOS) less comprehensively. Other fields may benefit from agricultural WOS mapping. The aim was to map all articles produced nationally (Slovenia) by agricultural research groups, over two decades, to their corresponding journals and categories in order to visualize the strength of links between the categories and scatter of articles, based on WOS-linked raw data in COBISS/SciMet portal (Co-operative Online Bibliographic System and Services/Science Metrics) and national CRIS—Slovenian Current Research Information System. Agricultural groups are mapped into four subfields: Forestry and Wood Science, Plant Production, Animal Production, and Veterinary Science. Food science is comprised as either plant- or animal-product-related. On average, 50 % of relevant articles are published outside the scope of journals mapped to WOS agricultural categories. The other half are mapped mostly to OECD Natural-, Medical- and Health Sciences, and Engineering-and-Technology. A few selected journals and principal categories account for an important part of all relevant documents (core). Even many core journals/categories as ascertained with power laws (Bradford’s law) are not mapped to agriculture. Research-evaluation based on these classifications may underestimate multidisciplinary dimensions of agriculture, affecting its position among scientific fields and also subsequent funding if established on such ranking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Cicero, T. (2012). What is the appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance? Scientometrics, 93(3), 1005–1017. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0714-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acosta, M., Coronado, D., Ferrándiz, E., & León, M. D. (2014). Regional scientific production and specialization in Europe: The role of HERD. European Planning Studies, 22(5), 949–974. doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.752439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aksnes, D., Olsen, T., & Seglen, P. (2000). Validation of bibliometric indicators in the field of microbiology: A Norwegian case study. Scientometrics, 49(1), 7–22. doi:10.1023/A:1005653006993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albarrán, P., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011). Average-based versus high- and low-impact indicators for the evaluation of scientific distributions. Research Evaluation, 20(4), 325–339. doi:10.3152/095820211X13164389670310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aleixandre, J. L., Aleixandre-Tudó, J. L., Bolaños-Pizzaro, M., & Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2013). Mapping the scientific research on wine and health (2001–2011). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 61(49), 11871–11880. doi:10.1021/jf404394e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartol, T. (2010). Scientometric assessment of publishing patterns and performance indicators in agriculture in the JCEA member countries. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 11(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartol, T., Budimir, G., Dekleva-Smrekar, D., Pusnik, M., & Juznic, P. (2014). Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1491–1504. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1148-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batagelj, V., & Mrvar, A. (2012). Pajek. Programs for large networks analysis. http://pajek.imfm.si/doku.php?id=pajek.

  • Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2015). Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts? Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 408–418. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borsi, B., & Schubert, A. (2011). Agrifood research in Europe: A global perspective. Scientometrics, 86(1), 133–154. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0235-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourke, P., & Butler, L. (1998). Institutions and the map of science: Matching university departments and fields of research1. Research Policy, 26(6), 711–718. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(97),00046-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subject. Engineering, 137, 85–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chavarro, D., Tang, P., & Rafols, I. (2014). Interdisciplinarity and research on local issues: Evidence from a developing country. Research Evaluation, 23(3), 195–209. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvu012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cova, T. F. G. C., Jarmelo, S., Formosinho, S. J., de Melo, J. S. S., & Pais, A. A. C. C. (2015). Unsupervised characterization of research institutions with task-force estimation. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferligoj, A., Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Snijders, T. A. B., & Doreian, P. (2015). Scientific collaboration dynamics in a national scientific system. Scientometrics, 104(3), 985–1012. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1585-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gautam, P., & Yanagiya, R. (2012). Reflection of cross-disciplinary research at Creative Research Institution (Hokkaido University) in the Web of Science database: Appraisal and visualization using bibliometry. Scientometrics, 93(1), 101–111. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0655-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367. doi:10.1023/A:1022378804087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., & Debackere, K. (2014). The application of citation-based performance classes to the disciplinary and multidisciplinary assessment in national comparison and institutional research assessment. Scientometrics, 101(2), 939–952. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1247-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, S., Yang, B., Yan, S., & Rousseau, R. (2014). Institution name disambiguation for research assessment. Scientometrics, 99(3), 823–838. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1214-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarneving, B. (2009). The publication activity of Region Västra Götaland: A bibliometric study of an administrative and political Swedish region during the period 1998–2006. Information Research, 14(2), Paper 397. http://www.informationr.net/ir/14-2/paper397.html.

  • Jonkers, K. (2009). Models and orphans; concentration of the plant molecular life science research agenda. Scientometrics, 83(1), 167–179. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0024-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juznic, P., Peclin, S., Zaucer, M., Mandelj, T., Pusnik, M., & Demsar, F. (2010). Scientometric indicators: Peer-review, bibliometric methods and conflict of interests. Scientometrics, 85(2), 429–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2009). Toward a consensus map of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(3), 455–476. doi:10.1002/asi.20991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutlaca, D., Babic, D., Zivkovic, L., & Strbac, D. (2014). Analysis of quantitative and qualitative indicators of SEE countries scientific output. Scientometrics, 102(1), 247–265. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1290-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, P., & von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84(3), 575–603. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2003). Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1237–1249. doi:10.1002/asi.10326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2007). OECD/OCDE. Revised field of science and technology (FOS) classification in the Frascati manual. http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/38235147.pdf.

  • Persson, O. (2010). Bibexcel: A toolbox for bibliometricians. Inforsk, Umea university. http://www8.umu.se/inforsk/Bibexcel/. Accessed 10 Nov 2015.

  • Pudovkin, A. I., & Garfield, E. (2002). Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(13), 1113–1119. doi:10.1002/asi.10153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation studies and business and management. Research Policy, 41(7), 1262–1282. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren, J.-L., Lyu, P.-H., Wu, X.-M., Ma, F.-C., Wang, Z.-Z., & Yang, G. (2013). An informetric profile of water resources management literatures. Water Resources Management, 27(13), 4679–4696. doi:10.1007/s11269-013-0435-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinia, E. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Bruins, E. E. W., van Vuren, H. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2002). Measuring knowledge transfer between fields of science. Scientometrics, 54(3), 347–362. doi:10.1023/A:1016078331752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Castillo, J., & Waltman, L. (2015). Field-normalized citation impact indicators using algorithmically constructed classification systems of science. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 102–117. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoeneck, D. J., Porter, A. L., Kostoff, R. N., & Berger, E. M. (2011). Assessment of Brazil’s research literature. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(6), 601–621. doi:10.1080/09537325.2011.585029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegmeier, T., & Möller, D. (2013). Mapping research at the intersection of organic farming and bioenergy: A scientometric review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 197–204. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.04.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testa, J. (2003). The Thomson ISI journal selection process. Serials Review, 29(3), 210–212. doi:10.1080/00987913.2003.10764831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Fairclough, R. (2015). Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles. Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 263–272. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson Reuters. (2015). InCites. http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLive/globalComparisonsGroup/globalComparisons/subjAreaSchemesGroup/oecd.html.

  • Toivanen, H. (2014). The shift from theory to innovation: The evolution of Brazilian research frontiers 2005–2011. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(1), 105–119. doi:10.1080/09537325.2013.850160.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Valderrama-Zurián, J.-C., Aguilar-Moya, R., Melero-Fuentes, D., & Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2015). A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 570–576. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanloqueren, G., & Baret, P. V. (2009). How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy, 38(6), 971–983. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilar, P., Juznic, P., Bartol, T., & GreyNet, G. L. N. S. (2012). Information-seeking behaviour of Slovenian researchers: Implications for information services. The Grey Journal, 8(1), 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., van Eck, N. J., et al. (2012). The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2419–2432. doi:10.1002/asi.22708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, E., Ding, Y., Cronin, B., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). A bird’s-eye view of scientific trading: Dependency relations among fields of science. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 249–264. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., Liu, X., Janssens, F., Liang, L., & Glänzel, W. (2010). Subject clustering analysis based on ISI category classification. Journal of Informetrics, 4(2), 185–193. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS): Research Project V5-1425 (B), and (partially) Research Programme P4-0085 (D).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agronomy Department, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Tomaz Bartol & Karmen Stopar

  2. Institute of Information Science, Presernova 17, 2000, Maribor, Slovenia

    Gordana Budimir

  3. Department of Library and Information Science and Book Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Askerceva 2, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Primoz Juznic

Authors
  1. Tomaz Bartol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gordana Budimir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Primoz Juznic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karmen Stopar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomaz Bartol.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bartol, T., Budimir, G., Juznic, P. et al. Mapping and classification of agriculture in Web of Science: other subject categories and research fields may benefit. Scientometrics 109, 979–996 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2071-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2071-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation