Document Type Profiles in Nature, Science, and PNAS: Journal and Country Level

Jielan Ding; Per Ahlgren; Liying Yang & Ting Yue

doi:10.20309/jdis.201618

Journal of Data and Information Science >

2016 , Vol. 1 >Issue 3: 27 - 41

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20309/jdis.201618

Research Paper

Document Type Profiles in Nature, Science, and PNAS: Journal and Country Level

Jielan Ding ,
Per Ahlgren ,
Liying Yang & Ting Yue

Expand

1 National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China;
2 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;
3 School of Education and Communication in Engineering Sciences (ECE), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm 100 44, Sweden

Received date: 2016-07-12

Revised date: 2016-08-11

Online published: 2016-08-17

Supported by

We thank Ronald Rousseau and Rainer Frietsch for valuable comments. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.: L1524037).

Fold

Abstract

Purpose: In this contribution, we want to detect the document type profiles of the three prestigious journals Nature, Science, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) with regard to two levels: journal and country.
Design/methodology/approach: Using relative values based on fractional counting, we investigate the distribution of publications across document types at both the journal and country level, and we use (cosine) document type profile similarity values to compare pairs of publication years within countries.
Findings: Nature and Science mainly publish Editorial Material, Article, News Item and Letter, whereas the publications of PNAS are heavily concentrated on Article. The shares of Article for Nature and Science are decreasing slightly from 1999 to 2014, while the corresponding shares of Editorial Material are increasing. Most studied countries focus on Article and Letter in Nature, but on Letter in Science and PNAS. The document type profiles of some of the studied countries change to a relatively large extent over publication years.
Research limitations: The main limitation of this research concerns the Web of Science classification of publications into document types. Since the analysis of the paper is based on document types of Web of Science, the classification in question is not free from errors, and the accuracy of the analysis might be affected.
Practical implications: Results show that Nature and Science are quite diversified with regard to document types. In bibliometric assessments, where publications in Nature and Science play a role, other document types than Article and Review might therefore be taken into account.
Originality/value: Results highlight the importance of other document types than Article and Review in Nature and Science. Large differences are also found when comparing the country document type profiles of the three journals with the corresponding profiles in all Web of Science journals.

http://ir.las.ac.cn/handle/12502/8730

Key words： Country; Document type profile; Nature; Science; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS)

Cite this article

Jielan Ding , Per Ahlgren , Liying Yang & Ting Yue . Document Type Profiles in Nature, Science, and PNAS: Journal and Country Level[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2016 , 1(3) : 27 -41 . DOI: 10.20309/jdis.201618

References

Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert A. (1989a). National publication patterns and citation impact in the multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science. Scientometrics, 17(1-2), 11-14.
Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1989b). Some data on the distribution of journal publication types in the Science Citation Index database. Scientometrics, 15(5-6), 325-330.
Campanario, J.M., Carretero, J., Marangon, V., Molina, A., & Ros, G. (2011). Effect on the journal impact factor of the number and document type of citing records: a wide-scale study. Scientometrics, 87, 75-84.
Frandsen, T.F. (2008). On the ratio of citable versus non-citable items in economics journals. Scientometrics, 74, 439-451.
Garfield, E. (1987). Why are the impacts of the leading medical journals so similar and yet so different? Item-by-item audits reveal a diversity of editorial material. Current Contents, 2, 7-13.
Harzing, A.W. (2010). Working with ISI data: Beware of categorisation problems. Retrieved from http://www.harzing.com/ISI_categories.htm.
Harzing, A.W. (2013). Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the social sciences? Scientometrics, 94(1), 23-34.
Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PloS ONE, 10(3), e0120495.
Kaneiwa, K., Adachi, J., Aoki, M., Masuda, T., Midorikawa, N., Tanimura, A., & Yamazaki, S. (1988). A comparison between the journals Nature and Science. Scientometrics, 13(3-4), 125-153.
Lewison, G. (2009). The percentage of reviews in research output: A simple measure of research esteem. Research Evaluation, 18(1), 25-37.
Michels, C., & Fu, J.Y. (2014). Systematic analysis of coverage and usage of conference proceedings in web of science. Scientometrics, 100(2), 307-327.
Rousseau, R. (2009). The most influential editorials. In In Åström, F., Danell, R., & Larsen, Bl, et al. (Eds.) Celebrating Scholarly Communication Studies. A Festschrift for Olle Persson at His 60^th Birthday (pp. 47-53). Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.
Sigogneau, A. (2000). An analysis of document types published in journals related to physics: Proceeding publications recorded in the Science Citation Index database. Scientometrics, 47(3), 589-604.
van Leeuwen, T.N., Moed, H.F., & Reedijk, J. (1999). Critical comments on Institute for Scientific Information impact factors: a sample of inorganic molecular chemistry journals. Journal of Information Science, 25(6), 489-498.
van Leeuwen, T.N., van der Wurff, L.J., & de Craen, A.J.M. (2007). Classification of “research letters” in general medical journals and its consequences in bibliometric research evaluation processes. Research Evaluation, 16(1), 59-63.
van Leeuwen, T., Costas, R., Calero-Medina, C., & Visser, M. (2013). The role of editorial material in bibliometric research performance assessments. Scientometrics, 95(2), 817-828.
Wang, Y.H., Fang, C., Sun, S.J., & Wang, X. (2008). Analysis of Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States (PNAS) (in Chinese). Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals, 29(4), 718-722.
Wang, X.W., Mao, W.L., Xu, S.M., & Zhang, C.B. (2014). Usage history of scientific literature: Nature metrics and metrics of Nature publications. Scientometrics, 98, 1923-1933.
Zhang, L., Rousseau, R., & Glänzel, W. (2011). Document-type country profiles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1403-1411.
Zuccala, A., & van Leeuwen, T.N. (2011). Book reviews in humanities research evaluations. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 62, 1979-1991.

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题

Abstract

Cite this article

References