Abstract
Citation analysis for evaluative purposes requires reference standards, as publication activity and citation habits differ considerably among fields. Reference standards based on journal classification schemes are fraught with problems in the case of multidisciplinary and general journals and are limited with respect to their resolution of fields. To overcome these shortcomings of journal classification schemes, we propose a new reference standard for chemistry and related fields that is based on the sections of the Chemical Abstracts database. We determined the values of the reference standard for research articles published in 2000 in the biochemistry sections of Chemical Abstracts as an example. The results show that citation habits vary extensively not only between fields but also within fields. Overall, the sections of Chemical Abstracts seem to be a promising basis for reference standards in chemistry and related fields for four reasons: (1) The wider coverage of the pertinent literature, (2) the quality of indexing, (3) the assignment of papers published in multidisciplinary and general journals to their respective fields, and (4) the resolution of fields on a lower level (e.g. mammalian biochemistry) than in journal classification schemes (e.g. biochemistry & molecular biology).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aksnes, D. W. (2005), Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57: 169–185.
Braam, R. R., Bruil, J. (1992), Quality of indexing information: Authors’ views on indexing of their articles in Chemical Abstracts online CA-File, Journal of Information Science, 18: 399–408.
Chemical Abstracts Service (1997), Subject Coverage and Arrangement of Abstracts by Sections in Chemical Abstracts, Columbus.
Chemical Abstracts Service (1999), Chemical Abstracts. Content Description, Columbus.
Cphemical Abstracts Service (2005), Cited References in Caplus and CA, STNotes, 24, available at: http://www.cas.org/support/stngen/stnotes/.
Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. (2003), A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes, Scientometrics, 56: 357–367.
Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., Czerwon, H. J. (1999), An item-by-item subject classification of papers published in multidisciplinary and general journals using reference analysis, Scientometrics, 44: 427–439.
Hamilton, K. S. (2003), Subfield and Level Classification of Journals (CHI No. 2012-R), CHI Research, Haddon Heights.
Katz, J. S., Hicks, D. (1995), The classification of interdisciplinary journals: A new approach. In: M. E. D. Koenig, A. Bookstein (Eds), Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Learned Information Inc., Medford, pp. 245–254.
Kostoff, R. N. (2002), Citation analysis of research performer quality, Scientometrics, 53: 49–71.
Kostoff, R. N., Martinez, W. L. (2005), Is citation normalization realistic? Journal of Information Science, 31: 57–61.
Martin, B. R., Irvine, J. (1983), Assessing basic research — Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy, Research Policy, 12: 61–90.
Marx, W., Schier, H., Wanitschek, M. (2001), Citation analysis using online databases: Feasibilities and shortcomings, Scientometrics, 52: 59–82.
Moed, H. F. (2005), Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Springer, Berlin.
Neuhaus, C., Daniel, H.-D. (2008), Data sources for performing citation analysis — An overview, Journal of Documentation, 64: 193–210.
Noma, E. (1986), Subject Classification and Influence Weights for 3000 Journals (CHI No. 8602F), CHI Research, Cherry Hill.
Ridley, D. D. (2001), Citation searches in on-line databases: Possibilities and pitfalls, Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 20: 1–10.
Rinia, E. J., De Lange, C., Moed, H. F. (1993), Measuring national output in physics: Delimitation problems, Scientometrics, 28: 89–110.
Schubert, A., Braun, T. (1996), Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators, Scientometrics, 36: 311–324.
Van Leeuwen, T. N. (2007), Modelling of bibliometric approaches and importance of output verification in research performance assessment, Research Evaluation, 16: 93–105.
Van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., Moed, H. F., Nederhof, T. J., Van Raan, A. F. J. (2003), The Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence, Scientometrics, 57: 257–280.
Van Raan, A. F. J. (2004), Measuring science. In: H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Eds), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 19–50.
Vinkler, P. (1986), Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications, Scientometrics, 10: 157–177.
Whitley, K. M. (2002), Analysis of SciFinder Scholar and Web of Science citation searches, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53: 1210–1215.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Neuhaus, C., Daniel, HD. A new reference standard for citation analysis in chemistry and related fields based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts . Scientometrics 78, 219–229 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2007-2
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2007-2