The operationalization of “fields” as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics: The cases of “library and information science” and “science & technology studies”
本文指出Web of Science学科类别（WCs）因索引者效应缺乏分析清晰度，不适合用于评价文献计量中的引用标准化，并呼吁从“最佳实践”转向“最佳可能实践”。
Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on W eb of S cience subject categories ( WC s) has become an established (“best”) practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the T imes H igher E ducation W orld U niversity R ankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WC s were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine‐based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC “information science & library science” and the WC s attributed to journals in the field of “science and technology studies,” we show that WC s do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of “indexer effects.” Can the compliance with “best practices” be replaced with an ambition to develop “best possible practices”? New research questions can then be envisaged.