Adèle Paul-Hus

The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis

Bibliometric methods are used in multiple fields for a variety of purposes, namely for research evaluation. Most bibliometric analyses have in common their data sources: Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science (WoS) and Elsevier’s Scopus. The objective of this research is to describe the journal coverage of those two databases and to assess whether some field, publishing country and language are over or underrepresented. To do this we compared the coverage of active scholarly journals in WoS (13,605 journals) and Scopus (20,346 journals) with Ulrich’s extensive periodical directory (63,013 journals). Results indicate that the use of either WoS or Scopus for research evaluation may introduce biases that favor Natural Sciences and Engineering as well as Biomedical Research to the detriment of Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities. Similarly, English-language journals are overrepresented to the detriment of other languages. While both databases share these biases, their coverage differs substantially. As a consequence, the results of bibliometric analyses may vary depending on the database used. These results imply that in the context of comparative research evaluation, WoS and Scopus should be used with caution, especially when comparing different fields, institutions, countries or languages. The bibliometric community should continue its efforts to develop methods and indicators that include scientific output that are not covered in WoS or Scopus, such as field-specific and national citation indexes.

Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production

Scientific authorship has been increasingly complemented with contributorship statements. While such statements are said to ensure more equitable credit and responsibility attribution, they also provide an opportunity to examine the roles and functions that authors play in the construction of knowledge and the relationship between these roles and authorship order. Drawing on a comprehensive and multidisciplinary dataset of 87,002 documents in which contributorship statements are found, this article examines the forms that division of labor takes across disciplines, the relationships between various types of contributions, as well as the relationships between the contribution types and various indicators of authors’ seniority. It shows that scientific work is more highly divided in medical disciplines than in mathematics, physics, and disciplines of the social sciences, and that, with the exception of medicine, the writing of the paper is the task most often associated with authorship. The results suggest a clear distinction between contributions that could be labeled as ‘technical’ and those that could be considered ‘conceptual’: While conceptual tasks are typically associated with authors with higher seniority, technical tasks are more often performed by younger scholars. Finally, results provide evidence of a U-shaped relationship between extent of contribution and author order: In all disciplines, first and last authors typically contribute to more tasks than middle authors. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the results for the reward system of science.

Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgement data in Web of Science

Funding acknowledgements found in scientific publications have been used to study the impact of funding on research since the 1970s. However, no broad scale indexation of that paratextual element was done until 2008, when Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science started to add funding acknowledgement information to its bibliographic records. As this new information provides a new dimension to bibliometric data that can be systematically exploited, it is important to understand the characteristics of these data and the underlying implications for their use. This paper analyses the presence and distribution of funding acknowledgement data covered in Web of Science. Our results show that prior to 2009 funding acknowledgements coverage is extremely low and therefore not reliable. Since 2008, funding information has been collected mainly for publications indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded; more recently (2015), inclusion of funding texts for publications indexed in the Social Science Citation Index has been implemented. Arts & Humanities Citation Index content is not indexed for funding acknowledgement data. Moreover, English-language publications are the most reliably covered. Finally, not all types of documents are equally covered for funding information indexation and only articles and reviews show consistent coverage. The characterization of the funding acknowledgement information collected by Thomson Reuters can therefore help understand the possibilities offered by the data but also their limitations.

Forty years of gender disparities in Russian science: a historical bibliometric analysis

Gender disparities persist in several areas of society and scientific research is no exception. This study describes the evolution of the place of women in Russian science from 1973 to 2012, in terms of published research output, research productivity, international and national collaboration, and scientific impact, taking into account the socioeconomic, political and historic context of the country, which was marked by the fall of the USSR in 1991. The results show that gender parity is far from being achieved. Women remain underrepresented in terms of their contribution to research output and scientific impact in almost all disciplines, with Mathematics and Physics, research areas in which Russia is specialized, having the largest gap. Men and women show different collaboration patterns on the national and international level, whereas women are preeminent on the national scene, men are on the international one. Although the impact of women’s scientific output significantly increases after the fall of the USSR, the gap between both genders remains stable over time for most of the disciplines. As a result, this increase cannot be interpreted as an improvement of the women’s relative influence in Russian science, but rather an improvement of Russian science impact in general.

The sum of it all: Revealing collaboration patterns by combining authorship and acknowledgements

Acknowledgments are one of many conventions by which researchers publicly bestow recognition towards individuals, organizations and institutions that contributed in some way to the work that led to publication. Combining data on both co-authors and acknowledged individuals, the present study analyses disciplinary differences in researchers’ credit attribution practices in collaborative context. Our results show that the important differences traditionally observed between disciplines in terms of team size are greatly reduced when acknowledgees are taken into account. Broadening the measurement of collaboration beyond co-authorship by including individuals credited in the acknowledgements allows for an assessment of collaboration practices and team work that might be closer to the reality of contemporary research, especially in the social sciences and humanities.

Scientific collaboration and high-technology exchanges among BRICS and G-7 countries

Over the last two decades, emerging countries located outside North America and Europe have reshaped the global economy. These countries are also increasing their share of the world’s scientific output. This paper analyzes the evolution of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and G-7 countries’ international scientific collaboration, and compares it with high-technology economic exchanges between 1995–1997 and 2010–2012. Our results show that BRICS scientific activities are enhanced by their high-technology exports and, to a larger extent, by their international collaboration with G-7 countries which remains, over the period studied, at the core of the BRICS scientific collaboration network. However, while high-technology exports made by most BRICS countries to G-7 countries have increased over the studied period, both the intra-BRICS high-technology flows and the intra-BRICS scientific collaboration have remained very weak.

Five decades of gratitude: A meta-synthesis of acknowledgments research

This review of the literature presents an overview of the last 50 years of research on acknowledgments in the context of scholarly communication. Through qualitative coding and bibliometric methods, this meta‐synthesis provides an in‐depth description of acknowledgments research and reveals the five main thematic categories that emerge from this corpus of literature. Adopting a historical approach, this review shows a diversified and scattered research landscape. Despite five decades of analysis putting forward the potential value of acknowledgments as markers of scientific capital, the literature still lacks consensus as to the value and functions of acknowledgments within the reward system of science.

Authorship, patents, citations, acknowledgments, tweets, reader counts and the multifaceted reward system of science

Building upon well‐established paradigms brought forth by such theorists as Robert K. Merton, Pierre Bourdieu, and Blaise Cronin, the panel will span the full cycle of academic production to show, through various bibliometric measures and other quantitative and qualitative analyses, how the reward system of science is evolving. While there is strong evidence to suggest that such forms of dissemination as social media output and blogging are being incorporated into scientific practices, scientific impact still remains principally assessed using measures such as authorship and citations, whilst other elements, such as acknowledgements, have received varying levels of regard at various times. Disciplinary considerations also arise. Using a wide range of approaches, measures, and datasets, the panelists will establish links between their individual research to create an empirically driven picture of the reward system of science and its indicators. Through the use of the Polldaddy application, audience members will answer questions and create an overview of their perception of the reward system of science.

Authorship, citations, acknowledgments and visibility in social media: Symbolic capital in the multifaceted reward system of science:

The reward system of science is undergoing significant changes, as traditional indicators compete with initiatives that offer novel means of disseminating and assessing scholarly impact. This article considers a number of aspects of this reward system, including authorship, citations, acknowledgements and the growing use of social media platforms by academics, with an eye towards identifying contemporary issues relating to scholarly communication practices, as understood through the perspectives of Bourdieu’s symbolic capital and Merton’s recognition framework. The article posits that, while scientific capital remains the foundation upon which the reward system of science is built, this system is revealing itself to be more and more multifaceted, extremely complex, and facing increasing tension between its traditional means of evaluation and the potential of new indicators in the digital era. The article presents an extended literature review, as well as recommendations for further consideration and empirical research. A better understanding of the perceptions of academics would be necessary to properly assess the effects of these new indicators on scholarly communication practices and the reward system of science.

Beyond funding : Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences

For the past 50 years, acknowledgments have been studied as important paratextual traces of research practices, collaboration, and infrastructure in science. Since 2008, funding acknowledgments have been indexed by Web of Science, supporting large-scale analyses of research funding. Applying advanced linguistic methods as well as Correspondence Analysis to more than one million acknowledgments from research articles and reviews published in 2015, this paper aims to go beyond funding disclosure and study the main types of contributions found in acknowledgments on a large scale and through disciplinary comparisons. Our analysis shows that technical support is more frequently acknowledged by scholars in Chemistry, Physics and Engineering. Earth and Space, Professional Fields, and Social Sciences are more likely to acknowledge contributions from colleagues, editors, and reviewers, while Biology acknowledgments put more emphasis on logistics and fieldwork-related tasks. Conflicts of interest disclosures (or lack of thereof) are more frequently found in acknowledgments from Clinical Medicine, Health and, to a lesser extent, Psychology. These results demonstrate that acknowledgment practices truly do vary across disciplines and that this can lead to important further research beyond the sole interest in funding.