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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Initially, I had also intended to include Scopus in the analyses conducted in this paper. However, Scopus categories are very different from the Web of Knowledge categories and rather opaque. Despite repeated attempts, I was unable to procure additional information from Scopus/Elsevier about their classification process and logic. Hence, I was unable to pursue this line of enquiry.
References
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.
Bailey, J. R. (2002). Educating rita. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 197.
Cameron, B. D. (2005). Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data, uses, abuses, and implication. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5, 105–125.
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.
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.
Davarpanah, M. R., & Aslekia, S. (2008). A scientometric analysis of international LIS journals: Productivity and characteristics. Scientometrics, 77(1), 21–39.
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.
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.
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).
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.
McDonald, S., & Kam, J. (2007). Ring a ring o’ roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 640–655.
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.
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.
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.
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314, 497–502.
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.
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.
Thomson Reuters. (1994). The Thomson Reuters impact factor. http://thomsonreuters.com/-products_services-/science/free/essays/impact_factor/. Accessed January 3, 2012.
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.
Thomson Reuters. (2011). The hottest research of 2010. http://www.sciencewatch.com/-ana/fea/11maraprFea/. Accessed January 3, 2012.
Thomson Reuters. (nd). Essential Science Indicators SM data information: Understanding core data—Hot papers, http://sciencewatch.com/about/met/core-hp/. Accessed January 3, 2012.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harzing, AW. Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the Social Sciences?. Scientometrics 94, 23–34 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0738-1
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0738-1