Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 111, Issue 3, pp 2041–2057 | Cite as

Early insights on the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI): an overlay map-based bibliometric study

  • Ying Huang
  • Donghua Zhu
  • Qi Lv
  • Alan L. Porter
  • Douglas K. R. Robinson
  • Xuefeng Wang
Article

Abstract

With rapid advances and diversifications in new fields of science and technology, new journals are emerging as a location for the exchange of research methods and findings in these burgeoning communities. These new journals are large in number and, in their early years, it is unclear how central these journals will be in the fields of science and technology. On one hand, these new journals offer valuable data sources for bibliometric scholars to understand and analyze emerging fields; on the other hand, how to identify important peer-reviewed journals remains a challenge—and one that is essential for funders, key opinion leaders, and evaluators to overcome. To fulfill growing demand, the Web of Science platform, as the world’s most trusted research publication and citation index, launched the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) in November 2015 to extend the universe of journals already included in the Science Citation Index Expanded, the Social Sciences Citation Index, and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index. This paper profiles ESCI, drawing some comparisons against these three established indexes in terms of two questions: (1) Does ESCI cover more regional journals of significant importance and provide a more balanced distribution of journals? (2) Does ESCI offer earlier visibility of emerging fields and trends through upgraded science overlay maps? The results show that the ESCI has a positive effect on research assessment and it accelerates communication in the scientific community. However, ESCI brings little impact to promoting the inferior role of non-English countries and regions. In addition, medical science, education research, social sciences, and humanities are emerging fields in recent research, reflected by the lower proportion of traditional fundamental disciplines and applied science journals included in ESCI. Furthermore, balancing the selection of journals across different research domains to facilitate cross-disciplinary research still needs further effort.

Keywords

Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) Web of Science Overlay maps Regional analysis Leiden Manifesto 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge support from the US National Science Foundation (Award No. 1527370), the General Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71373019 and 71673024), and the Chinese National Program for High Technology Research and Development (Grant No. 2014AA015105). The findings and observations contained in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the supporters.

References

  1. Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2003). Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 550–560. doi: 10.1002/asi.10242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archambault, É., & Larivière, V. (2009). History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences. Scientometrics, 79(3), 635–649. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-2036-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bordons, M., Fernández, M. T., & Gómez, I. (2002). Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance. Scientometrics, 53(2), 195–206. doi: 10.1023/a:1014800407876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carley, S., Porter, A. L., Rafols, I., & Leydesdorff, L. (under review). Visualization of disciplinary profiles: An update on science overlay maps. PLoS ONE. Google Scholar
  5. Evans, J., & Reimer, J. (2009). Open access and global participation in science. Science, 323(5917), 1025. doi: 10.1126/science.1154562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342. doi: 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferrer-Sapena, A., Sánchez-Pérez, E. A., Peset, F., González, L.-M., & Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2016). The impact factor as a measuring tool of the prestige of the journals in research assessment in mathematics. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 306–314. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvv041.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. García-Zorita, C., Martín-Moreno, C., Lascurain-Sánchez, M. L., & Sanz-Casado, E. (2006). Institutional addresses in the Web of Science: The effects on scientific evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 32(4), 378–383. doi: 10.1177/0165551506065813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., Brody, T., et al. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS ONE, 5(10), e13636. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guo, Y., Huang, L., & Porter, A. L. (2010). The research profiling method applied to nano-enhanced, thin-film solar cells. R&D Management, 40(2), 195–208. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00600.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. doi: 10.1038/520429a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hood, W. W., & Wilson, C. S. (2003). Informetric studies using databases: Opportunities and challenges. Scientometrics, 58(3), 587–608. doi: 10.1023/B:SCIE.0000006882.47115.c6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. James, H. (2016). What is the emerging sources citation index? http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/what-is-the-emerging-sources-citation-index/. Accessed 18 Nov 2016.
  14. Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations using the journal citation reports? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(5), 601–613. doi: 10.1002/asi.20322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leydesdorff, L., Carley, S., & Rafols, I. (2013). Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories. Scientometrics, 94(2), 589–593. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0784-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leydesdorff, L., Hammarfelt, B., & Salah, A. (2011). The structure of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index: A mapping on the basis of aggregated citations among 1157 journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(12), 2414–2426. doi: 10.1002/asi.21636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2009). A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 348–362. doi: 10.1002/asi.20967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li, F., Miao, Y., & Yang, C. (2015). How do alumni faculty behave in research collaboration? An analysis of Chang Jiang Scholars in China. Research Policy, 44(2), 438–450. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu, W. (2015). The booming of open access publications in science. Current Science, 109(7), 1221–1222.Google Scholar
  20. Liu, W., Hu, G., & Gu, M. (2016). The probability of publishing in first-quartile journals. Scientometrics, 106(3), 1273–1276. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1821-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu, W., Hu, G., Tang, L., & Wang, Y. (2015). China’s global growth in social science research: Uncovering evidence from bibliometric analyses of SSCI publications (1978–2013). Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 555–569. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.05.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. May, M., & Herb, B. (2015). East & Southeast Asia. Nature, 522(7556), S14–S16. doi: 10.1038/522S14a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rafols, I., Porter, A. L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Science overlay maps: A new tool for research policy and library management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1871–1887. doi: 10.1002/asi.21368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rotolo, D., Rafols, I., Hopkins, M. M., & Leydesdorff, L. (2017). Strategic intelligence on emerging technologies: Scientometric overlay mapping. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(1), 214–233. doi: 10.1002/asi.23631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ShanghaiRanking Consultancy (2016). Methodology for Academic Ranking of World Universities 2016. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2016.html. Accessed 18 Nov 2016.
  27. Tang, L., Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. (2015). Is there a clubbing effect underlying Chinese research citation increases? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(9), 1923–1932. doi: 10.1002/asi.23302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomson Reuters (2015). Web of Science Release Notes v5.20. http://wokinfo.com/media/pdf/wos_release_520.pdf. Accessed 12 Sep 2016.
  29. UNESCO. (2015). Unesco science report: 2015: Towards 2030 (UNESCO science report). Paris, France: United Nations Education, Scientific & Cultural Organization.Google Scholar
  30. Waring, G. O. (2006). Increased publication frequency and online advanced release-two strides forward for faster dissemination of information. Journal of Refractive Surgery, 22(3), 226–227. doi: 10.3928/1081-597X-20060301-03.Google Scholar
  31. Xue-Li, L., Rui-Yuan, L., & Mei-Ying, W. (2012). Correlation of publication frequency with impact factors in 1058 medical journals in SCI-expanded database. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 17(3), 7–16.Google Scholar
  32. Zhou, P., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2009). Regional analysis on Chinese scientific output. Scientometrics, 81(3), 839–857. doi: 10.1007/s11192-008-2255-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ying Huang
    • 1
  • Donghua Zhu
    • 1
  • Qi Lv
    • 1
  • Alan L. Porter
    • 2
    • 3
  • Douglas K. R. Robinson
    • 4
  • Xuefeng Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Management and EconomicsBeijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Search Technology, Inc.NorcrossUSA
  4. 4.Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations Sociétés (LISIS), ESIEE-IFRISUniversité Paris-Est Marne-la-ValléeChamps-sur-MarneFrance

Personalised recommendations