Abstract
In a study of the Dutch publication output in physics we tested methods of delimitating fields by journal categories in theScience Citation Index (SCI) compared to the classification of individual publications into subfields in the subject specific databasePhysics Briefs (PHYS). Different methods of measuring national scientific output were compared as well. In this paper we report the main findings on these issues, based on a study of six selected subfields in physics. The main conclusion with respect to the use of different classification methods is that in most of the selected fields in physics the method which delimitates fields by journal categories yields an incomplete picture of the output of a country. Particularly because this method neglects a considerable number of articles published in general journals. With respect to different methods of counting publications it was corroborated by the Dutch data inPhysics Briefs that: 1. so-called ‘integer counted’ world shares are very much influenced by the degree of ‘internationalisation’ and 2. ‘first author counting’ gives a satisfactory approximation of ‘fractional counting’. Citation indicators based on ‘first author counting’, however, may be distorted in fields with a large fraction of international co-authored publications.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J. Anderson, P. M. D. Collins, J. Irvine, Ph. A. Isard, B. R. Martin, F. R. Narin, K. A. Stevens, On-line approaches to measuring national scientific performance: a cautionary tale,Science and Public Policy, 15 (1988) 153–160.
T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Chubert, The bibliometric assessment of UK scientific performance,Scientometrics, 20 (1991) 359–362.
L. Leydesdorff, On the ‘scientometric decline’ of British science,Scientometrics, 20 (1991) 363–367.
W. Lück, Input statistics 1989, PHYS Database Reference Series (1990) No. 3-5, 1–16.
B. R. Martin, The bibliometric assessment of UK scientific performance,Scientometrics, 20 (1991) 333–357.
B. R. Martin, J. Irvine, F. Narin, C. Sterritt, K. A. Stevens, Recent trends in output and impact of British science,Science and Public Policy, 17 (1990) 14–26.
H. F. Moed, R. E. De Bruin, A. J. Nederhof, R. J. W. Thussen, International scientific cooperation and awareness within the European Community: problems and perspectives,Scientometrics, 21 (1991) 291–311.
H. F. Moed, New developments in online bibliometric analysis. In:A. F. J. van Raan, A. J. Nederhof, H. F. Moed (Eds),Science and Technology Indicators: Their Use in Science Policy and Their Role in Science Studies, DSWO Press, Leiden, 1989, p. 115–127.
H. F. Moed, M. Vriens, Possible inaccuracies occurring in citation analysis,Journal of Information Science, 15 (1989) 283–295.
F. Narin, K. Stevens, E. S. Whitlow, Scientific cooperation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers,Scientometrics, 21 (1991) 313–324.
A. J. Nederhof, H. F. Moed, Modeling multinational publication: development of an on-line fractionation approach to measure national scientific output,Scientometrics, 27 (1993) 39–52.
E. Noma, Subject Classification and Influence Weights for 3,000 Journals, Computer Horizons Inc., Cherry Hill, New Yersey, 1986.
E. J. Rinia, C. de Lange, The Dutch Publication Output in Physics: 1979–1988. FOM-Report 68726, FOM, Utrecht, 1991.
A. Schubert, W. Glänzel, T. Braun, World flash on basic research: Scientometric datafiles. A comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major science fields and subfields 1981–1985,Scientometrics, 16 (1989) 3–478.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rinia, E.J., De Lange, C. & Moed, H.F. Measuring national output in physics: Delimitation problems. Scientometrics 28, 89–110 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016287
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016287