Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

Leydesdorff, L.; Rafols, I.: ¬A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories (2009) 0.02
```
0.022100445 = product of:
  0.04420089 = sum of:
    0.04420089 = product of:
      0.08840178 = sum of:
        0.08840178 = weight(_text_:maps in 2713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08840178 = score(doc=2713,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.31042236 = fieldWeight in 2713, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2713)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

The decomposition of scientific literature into disciplinary and subdisciplinary structures is one of the core goals of scientometrics. How can we achieve a good decomposition? The ISI subject categories classify journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI). The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports can be aggregated on the basis of these categories. This leads to an asymmetrical matrix (citing versus cited) that is much more densely populated than the underlying matrix at the journal level. Exploratory factor analysis of the matrix of subject categories suggests a 14-factor solution. This solution could be interpreted as the disciplinary structure of science. The nested maps of science (corresponding to 14 factors, 172 categories, and 6,164 journals) are online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/map06. Presumably, inaccuracies in the attribution of journals to the ISI subject categories average out so that the factor analysis reveals the main structures. The mapping of science could, therefore, be comprehensive and reliable on a large scale albeit imprecise in terms of the attribution of journals to the ISI subject categories.
Rafols, I.; Leydesdorff, L.: Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals : perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects (2009) 0.02
```
0.022100445 = product of:
  0.04420089 = sum of:
    0.04420089 = product of:
      0.08840178 = sum of:
        0.08840178 = weight(_text_:maps in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08840178 = score(doc=3095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.31042236 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix - based on the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Science Citation Index - can be decomposed by indexers or algorithmically. In this study, we test the results of two recently available algorithms for the decomposition of large matrices against two content-based classifications of journals: the ISI Subject Categories and the field/subfield classification of Glänzel and Schubert (2003). The content-based schemes allow for the attribution of more than a single category to a journal, whereas the algorithms maximize the ratio of within-category citations over between-category citations in the aggregated category-category citation matrix. By adding categories, indexers generate between-category citations, which may enrich the database, for example, in the case of inter-disciplinary developments. Algorithmic decompositions, on the other hand, are more heavily skewed towards a relatively small number of categories, while this is deliberately counter-acted upon in the case of content-based classifications. Because of the indexer effects, science policy studies and the sociology of science should be careful when using content-based classifications, which are made for bibliographic disclosure, and not for the purpose of analyzing latent structures in scientific communications. Despite the large differences among them, the four classification schemes enable us to generate surprisingly similar maps of science at the global level. Erroneous classifications are cancelled as noise at the aggregate level, but may disturb the evaluation locally.