<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><sec><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To give a theoretical framework to measure the relative impact of bibliometric methodology on the subfields of a scientific discipline, and how that impact depends on the method of evaluation used to credit individual scientists with citations and publications. The authors include a study of the discipline of physics to illustrate the method. Indicators are introduced to measure the proportion of a credit space awarded to a subfield or a set of authors.</p></sec><sec><h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3><p>The theoretical methodology introduces the notion of credit spaces for a discipline. These quantify the total citation or publication credit accumulated by the scientists in the discipline. One can then examine how the credit is divided among the subfields. The design of the physics study uses the American Physical Society print journals to assign subdiscipline classifications to articles and gather citation, publication, and author information. Credit spaces for the collection of Physical Review Journal articles are computed as a proxy for physics.</p></sec><sec><h3>Findings</h3><p>There is a substantial difference in the value or impact of a specific subfield depending on the credit system employed to credit individual authors.</p></sec><sec><h3>Research limitations</h3><p>Subfield classification information is difficult to obtain. In the illustrative physics study, subfields are treated in groups designated by the Physical Review journals. While this collection of articles represents a broad part of the physics literature, it is not all the literature nor a random sample.</p></sec><sec><h3>Practical implications</h3><p>The method of crediting individual scientists has consequences beyond the individual and affects the perceived impact of whole subfields and institutions.</p></sec><sec><h3>Originality/value</h3><p>The article reveals the consequences of bibliometric methodology on subfields of a disciple by introducing a systematic theoretical framework for measuring the consequences.</p></sec></abstract>

PurposeTo give a theoretical framework to measure the relative impact of bibliometric methodology on the subfields of a scientific discipline, and how that impact depends on the method of evaluation used to credit individual scientists with citations and publications. The authors include a study of the discipline of physics to illustrate the method. Indicators are introduced to measure the proportion of a credit space awarded to a subfield or a set of authors.Design/methodology/approachThe theoretical methodology introduces the notion of credit spaces for a discipline. These quantify the total citation or publication credit accumulated by the scientists in the discipline. One can then examine how the credit is divided among the subfields. The design of the physics study uses the American Physical Society print journals to assign subdiscipline classifications to articles and gather citation, publication, and author information. Credit spaces for the collection of Physical Review Journal articles are computed as a proxy for physics.FindingsThere is a substantial difference in the value or impact of a specific subfield depending on the credit system employed to credit individual authors.Research limitationsSubfield classification information is difficult to obtain. In the illustrative physics study, subfields are treated in groups designated by the Physical Review journals. While this collection of articles represents a broad part of the physics literature, it is not all the literature nor a random sample.Practical implicationsThe method of crediting individual scientists has consequences beyond the individual and affects the perceived impact of whole subfields and institutions.Originality/valueThe article reveals the consequences of bibliometric methodology on subfields of a disciple by introducing a systematic theoretical framework for measuring the consequences.

Co-author Weighting in Bibliometric Methodology and Subfields of a Scientific Discipline

Journal of Data and Information Science

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

PurposeTo give a theoretical framework to measure the relative impact of bibliometric methodology on the subfields of a scientific discipline, and how that...

PR	Coverage
A	Atomic, molecular, & optical physics and quantum information
B	Condensed matter & materials physics
C	Areas of experimental & theoretical nuclear physics
D	Elementary particle physics, field theory, gravitation, & cosmology
E	Statistical, nonlinear, biological, & soft matter physics

PR	CP	WCP	Ratio
A	0.158	0.038	0.241
B	0.384	0.120	0.313
C	0.079	0.262	3.316
D	0.262	0.555	2.118
E	0.117	0.025	0.214

PR	AP	WAP	Ratio
A	0.195	0.054	0.277
B	0.331	0.122	0.369
C	0.077	0.103	1.338
D	0.224	0.680	3.036
E	0.173	0.041	0.237

Co-author Weighting in Bibliometric Methodology and Subfields of a Scientific Discipline

Article Category: Research Paper

Published Online: Jul 03, 2020

Page range: 84 - 96

Received: Dec 25, 2019

Accepted: Jun 11, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2020-0021

Keywords
Citation analysis, Bibliometrics, Research evaluation, Co-author

© 2020 Lawrence Smolinsky et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Physical Review Journals (PR) and their coverage, which reflects the subfields measured.

Comparison of credit to subfields in the Physical Review Journals for citations by two methods of calculation.

NRC assessment of doctorate programs faculty variables.

Comparison of credit to subfields in the Physical Review Journals for publications by two methods of calculation.

Variable
Publications per allocated faculty
Cites per publication
Grants per allocated faculty
Percent faculty interdisciplinary
Percent non-Asian minority faculty
Percent female faculty
Awards per allocated faculty

Co-author Weighting in Bibliometric Methodology and Subfields of a Scientific Discipline

Article Category: Research Paper

Published Online: Jul 03, 2020

Page range: 84 - 96

Received: Dec 25, 2019

Accepted: Jun 11, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2020-0021

KeywordsCitation analysis, Bibliometrics, Research evaluation, Co-author

© 2020 Lawrence Smolinsky et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Physical Review Journals (PR) and their coverage, which reflects the subfields measured.

Comparison of credit to subfields in the Physical Review Journals for citations by two methods of calculation.

NRC assessment of doctorate programs faculty variables.

Comparison of credit to subfields in the Physical Review Journals for publications by two methods of calculation.

Keywords
Citation analysis, Bibliometrics, Research evaluation, Co-author