Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society (한국도서관정보학회지)

Korean Library and Information Science Society (한국도서관정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Assessing the Utilization and Interrelatedness of Scopus Subject Categories

Scopus에 설정된 주제분류 활용도 및 상호 연관성에 대한 고찰

  • Received : 2019.02.20
  • Accepted : 2019.03.19
  • Published : 2019.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study investigated the utilization and interrelatedness of Scopus subject categories. To conduct this study, major and minor subject categories of journals listed in the 2017 Scopus index were used. The results showed varying degrees of interrelatedness of subject categories. At the major subject category level, the utilization was the highest in Medicine, while Social Sciences showed a greater degree of interrelatedness in comparison to Medicine. Yet, at the minor subject level, 2700 General Medicine was particularly dominant in terms of utilization and interrelatedness. Moreover, co-occurrences of minor subject categories showed varying degrees of interrelatedness between pairs of minor subject categories. Pairs of minor subject categories showed the following characteristics: a) two subject categories having identical or closely identical descriptions, b) two different categories having an interrelationship by subject areas, and c) one category conceptually encompassing another category. Due to varying degrees of utilization and interrelatedness among subject categories, minor subject categories that may greatly influence the major subject categories in conducting research studies should be investigated in detail.

본 연구는 Scopus의 분류시스템에서 설정된 주제분류의 활용도와 상호연관성을 조사했다. 연구 수행의 범위는 2017년도 Scopus 색인에 포함된 저널의 대 주제 분류 및 소 주제분류를 포함하였다. 연구의 결과는 Scopus의 주제 분류별 활용도에서의 빈도수나 주제분류간 상호연관성에서도 다양한 양상을 보였다. 이 가운데 대 주제분류활용률과 상호연관성의 양상은 의학과 사회과학분야에서 가장 활발하고 다양하게 나타났다. 한편, 소 주제분류에서는 "2700 General Medicine"이 상호연관 측면에서 최고의 다양성을 보여주었다. 이외에 쌍을 이루는 소 주제분류 간의 동시 빈도수 분석에서 특징적인 상호연관성을 보이는 경우들을 발견하였는데 같은 분야의 주제어가 비슷한 연관성, 분야는 다르지만 주제가 연결된 연관성, 주제어간 상,하위범주의 연관성의 경우들이다. 소수의 소 주제분류간에는 매우 유사한 주제어를 사용한 경우들도 있었다. 이러한 주제분류별 활용도와 주제분류간의 상호연관성들이 보여주는 다양한 양상들로 인해 연구수행에 있어서 대 주제분류뿐만 아니라 대주제 분류에 많은 영향을 미치는 소 주제분류까지도 면밀하게 살펴볼 필요가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Abrizah, Abdullah et al. 2013. "LIS Journals Scientific Impact and Subject Categorization: A Comparison Between Web of Science and Scopus." Scientometrics, 94(2): 721-740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0813-7
  2. Aho, Alfred V., Brian W. Kernighan and Peter J. Weinberger. 1979. "Awk a Pattern Scanning - and Processing Language." Software: Practice and Experience, 9(4): 267-279. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.4380090403
  3. Batagelj, Vladimir and Andrej Mrvar, A. 1998. "Pajek-Program for Large Network Analysis." Connections, 21(2): 47-57.
  4. Bervkens, Peter. 2012. "SciVerse Scopus Custom Data Documentation." Available from: http://ebrp.elsevier.com/pdf/Scopus_Custom_Data_Documentation_v4.pdf
  5. Chung, Jenny and Ming-Yueh Tsay. 2017. "A Bibliometric Analysis of the Literature on Open Access in Scopus." Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 4(4): 821-841.
  6. Dorta-Gonzalez, Pablo and Yolanda. Santana-Jimenez. 2017. "Prevalence and Citation Advantage of Gold Open Access in The Subject Areas of the Scopus Database." Research Evaluation, 27(1): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx035
  7. Freeman, Linton. C. 1978. "Centrality in Social Networks Conceptual Clarification." Social Networks, 1(3): 215-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
  8. Garcia, Jose A., Rosa Rodriguez Sanchez and J. Fdez Valdivia. 2011. "Ranking of the Subject Areas of Scopus." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(10): 2013-2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21589
  9. Gomez-Nunez, Antonio J. et al. 2011. "Improving SCImago Journal and Country Rank (SJR) Subject Classification Through Reference Analysis." Scientometrics, 89(3): 741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0485-8
  10. Hassan, Saeed-Ul et al. 2017. "Measuring Social Media Activity of Scientific Literature: An Exhaustive Comparison of Scopus and Novel Altmetrics Big Data." Scientometrics, 113(2): 1037-1057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2512-x
  11. Kim, Jinkwang, Sohyung Kim and Changhyuck Oh. 2016. "A Classification of the Journals in KCI Using Network Clustering Methods." Journal of the Korean Data and Information Science Society, 27(4): 947-957. https://doi.org/10.7465/jkdi.2016.27.4.947
  12. Klarenbeek, Tracy and Nelius Boshoff. 2018. "Measuring Multidisciplinary Health Research at South African Universities: A Comparative Analysis Based on Co-Authorships and Journal Subject Categories. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1461-1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2813-8
  13. Kosecki, Stanislaw, Robin Shoemaker and Charlotte Kirk Baer. 2011. "Scope, Characteristics, and Use of the US Department of Agriculture's Intramural Research." Scientometrics, 88(3): 707-728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0359-0
  14. Lee, Jaeyoon. 2006. "Centrality Measures for Bibliometric Network Analysis." Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 40(3): 191-214. https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2006.40.3.191
  15. Leydesdorff, Loet. 2007. "Betweenness Centrality as an Indicator of the Interdisciplinarity of Scientific Journals." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9): 1303-1319. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20614
  16. Leydesdorff, Loet. and Ismael Rafols. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20967
  17. Leydesdorff, Loet and Lutz Bornmann. 2016. "The Operationalization of Fields as WoS Subject Categories (WCS) in Evaluative Bibliometrics: The Cases of Library and Information Science and Science and Technology Studies." Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(3): 707-714. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23408
  18. Martin-Martin, Alberto et al. 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A Systematic Comparison of Citations in 252 Subject Categories." Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
  19. Minguet, Fernando et al. 2017. "Redefining the Pharmacology and Pharmacy Subject Category in the Journal Citation Reports Using Medical Subject Headings (Mesh)." International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 39(5): 989-997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-017-0527-2
  20. Newman, Mark EJ. 2005. "A Measure of Betweenness Centrality Based on Random Walks." Social Networks, 27(1): 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.009
  21. Porter, Alan et al. 2007. "Measuring Researcher Interdisciplinarity." Scientometrics, 72(1): 117-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1700-5
  22. Ronda-Pupo, Guillermo Armando, Yesenia Ronda-Danta and Yusleydis Leyva-Pupo. 2016. "Correlation Between a Country's Centrality Measures and the Impact of Research Paper: The Case of Biotechnology Research in Latin America." Investigacion Bibliotecologica: Archivonomia, Bibliotecologia e Informacion, 30(69): 73-92.
  23. Stanton, Colleen Maura. 2014. A Health Promoting Continuous Learning Sustainable Education System. PhD Thesis. University of Toronto, Canada.
  24. Thelwall, Mike. 2017. "Are Mendeley Reader Counts High Enough for Research Evaluations When Articles Are Published?" Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(2): 174-183. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0028
  25. Valente, Thomas W. et al. 2008. "How Correlated Are Network Centrality Measures?" Connections (Toronto, Ont.), 28(1): 16.
  26. Van Eck, Nees and Ludo Waltman. 2009. "Software Survey: Vosviewer, A Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping." Scientometrics, 84(2): 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
  27. Waltman, Ludo, Nees Jan Van Eck and Ed CM Noyons. 2010. "A Unified Approach to Mapping and Clustering of Bibliometric Networks." Journal of Informetrics, 4(4): 629-635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002
  28. Wagner, Caroline S. et al. 2011. "Approaches to Understanding and Measuring Interdisciplinary Scientific Research (IDR): A Review of the Literature." Journal of informetrics, 5(1): 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004
  29. Wang, Qi and Ludo Waltman. 2016. "Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus." Journal of Informetrics, 10(2): 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003
  30. Yan, Erjia. 2016. "Disciplinary Knowledge Production and Diffusion in Science." Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9): 2223-2245. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23541
  31. Zuccala, Alesia and Raf Guns. 2013. "Comparing Book Citations in Humanities Journals to Library Holdings: Scholarly Use Versus Perceived Cultural Benefit." 14th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, 1: 353-360.