  The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix -based on the Journal Citation
Reports (JCR) of the Science Citation Index- can be decomposed by indexers
and/or algorithmically. In this study, we test the results of two recently
available algorithms for the decomposition of large matrices against two
content-based classifications of journals: the ISI Subject Categories and the
field/subfield classification of Glaenzel & Schubert (2003). The content-based
schemes allow for the attribution of more than a single category to a journal,
whereas the algorithms maximize the ratio of within-category citations over
between-category citations in the aggregated category-category citation matrix.
By adding categories, indexers generate between-category citations, which may
enrich the database, for example, in the case of inter-disciplinary
developments. The consequent indexer effects are significant in sparse areas of
the matrix more than in denser ones. Algorithmic decompositions, on the other
hand, are more heavily skewed towards a relatively small number of categories,
while this is deliberately counter-acted upon in the case of content-based
classifications. Because of the indexer effects, science policy studies and the
sociology of science should be careful when using content-based
classifications, which are made for bibliographic disclosure, and not for the
purpose of analyzing latent structures in scientific communications. Despite
the large differences among them, the four classification schemes enable us to
generate surprisingly similar maps of science at the global level. Erroneous
classifications are cancelled as noise at the aggregate level, but may disturb
the evaluation locally.
