Scientometrics

, Volume 94, Issue 1, pp 23–34 | Cite as

Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the Social Sciences?

Article

Abstract

Thomson Reuter’s ISI Web of Knowledge (or ISI for short) is used in the majority of benchmarking analyses and bibliometric research projects. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the limitations of data provided by ISI. This article deals with a limitation that disproportionally affects the Social Sciences: ISI’s misclassification of journal articles containing original research into the “review” or “proceedings paper” category. I report on a comprehensive, 11 year analysis, of document categories for 27 journals in nine Social Science and Science disciplines. I show that although ISI’s “proceedings paper” and “review” classifications seem to work fairly well in the Sciences, they illustrate a profound misunderstanding of research and publication practices in the Social Sciences.

Keywords

Thomson Reuters Web of knowledge Document categories Social Sciences Review articles Proceedings papers 

References

  1. Adler, N., & Harzing, A. W. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. The Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, J. R. (2002). Educating rita. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cameron, B. D. (2005). Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data, uses, abuses, and implication. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5, 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campanario, J. M., Carretero, J., Marangon, V., Molina, V., & Ros, G. (2011). Effect on the journal impact factor of the number and document type of citing records: A wide-scale study. Scientometrics, 87(1), 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi, S. (2012). Core-periphery, new clusters, or rising stars? International scientific collaboration among ‘advanced’ countries in the era of globalization. Scientometrics, 90(1), 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davarpanah, M. R., & Aslekia, S. (2008). A scientometric analysis of international LIS journals: Productivity and characteristics. Scientometrics, 77(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1346–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harzing, A. W., Metz I. (2012a). Practicing what we preach: The geographic diversity of editorial boards, Management International Review. doi: 10.1007/s11575-011-0124-x.
  9. Harzing, A. W., Metz I. (2012b). Explaining geographic diversity of editorial boards: The role of conference participation and english language skills. European Journal of International Management, 5(3) (in press).Google Scholar
  10. Harzing, A. W., & van der Wal, R. (2008). Google scholar as a new source for citation analysis? Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 62–71.Google Scholar
  11. McDonald, S., & Kam, J. (2007). Ring a ring o’ roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 640–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Metz, I., Harzing, A. W. (2012). An update of gender diversity in Editorial Boards: A longitudinal Study of management journals, Personnel Review, 41(3), 283–300.Google Scholar
  13. Reedijk, J. (1998). Sense and nonsense of science citation analyses: Comments on the monopoly position of ISI and citation inaccuracies. Risks of possible misuse and biased citation and impact data. New Journal of Chemistry, 22, 767–770.Google Scholar
  14. Rodríguez-Navarro, A. (2011). A simple index for the high-citation tail of citation distribution to quantify research performance in countries and institutions. PLoS ONE, 6(5), e20510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314, 497–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shin, J. C., Lee, S. J., & Kim, Y. (2012). Knowledge-based innovation and collaboration: A triple-helix approach in Saudi Arabia. Scientometrics, 90(1), 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sigogneau, A. (2000). An analysis of document types published in journals related to physics: Proceeding papers recorded in the science citation index database. Scientometrics, 47(3), 589–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thomson Reuters. (1994). The Thomson Reuters impact factor. http://thomsonreuters.com/-products_services-/science/free/essays/impact_factor/. Accessed January 3, 2012.
  19. Thomson Reuters. (2008). Why has the number of articles in Web of Science gone down, and the number of proceedings papers gone up? http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/-multidisciplinary/webofscience/cpci/usingproceedings/. Accessed January 3, 2012.
  20. Thomson Reuters. (2011). The hottest research of 2010. http://www.sciencewatch.com/-ana/fea/11maraprFea/. Accessed January 3, 2012.
  21. Thomson Reuters. (nd). Essential Science Indicators SM data information: Understanding core dataHot papers, http://sciencewatch.com/about/met/core-hp/. Accessed January 3, 2012.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management & MarketingUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations