identification of review articles

[Linda Butler]

I'm hoping someone on the list may be able to help with this query ...

Until now, I have often used separate field-normalised benchmarks for articles and reviews.  However some recent work I have undertaken has made me question the wisdom of this.  My understanding is that Scopus and WoS both classify a publication as a 'review' if it contains more than 100 references. I hadn't thought too closely about this methodology until I recently came across some articles that both Scopus and WoS have classified as reviews, but which appear to be standard research articles (though with lots of references).  I'm now beginning to wonder whether I should continue to used separate benchmarks for articles and reviews.  If it is only one or two papers that crop up in a macro level analysis, then I won't be too concerned.  But if there is a question mark over the accuracy of this method for identifying reviews, and the problem is more common than, then I will need to rethink my methodology.

Does anyone know of any empirical studies that have examined the accuracy of this method for classifying a publication as a review?  

Or even if you don't know of any studies, have you come across similar concerns in any analyses you have undertaken?

with thanks
Linda Butler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20100507/3b30b170/attachment.html>