Abstract Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach 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. Findings There is a substantial difference in the value or impact of a specific subfield depending on the credit system employed to credit individual authors. Research limitations 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. Practical implications The method of crediting individual scientists has consequences beyond the individual and affects the perceived impact of whole subfields and institutions. Originality/value The article reveals the consequences of bibliometric methodology on subfields of a disciple by introducing a systematic theoretical framework for measuring the consequences.

中文翻译：

---

文献计量方法学和科学学科子领域的合著者加权

摘要目的提供一个理论框架来衡量文献计量学方法对科学学科的子领域的相对影响，以及这种影响如何取决于评估方法的重要性，该评估方法用于为单个科学家提供引文和出版物。作者对物理学科进行了研究，以说明该方法。引入指标来衡量授予子字段或一组作者的信用空间的比例。设计/方法/方法理论方法引入了学科信用空间的概念。这些量化了该学科的科学家积累的总引文或出版物学分。然后可以检查信用如何在子字段之间分配。物理研究的设计使用美国物理学会的印刷期刊来为文章分配子学科分类，并收集引文，出版物和作者信息。收集《 Physical Review Journal》文章的信用空间被计算为物理的代理。研究发现，具体的子领域的价值或影响存在很大差异，具体取决于对个人作者给予信用的信用体系。研究局限性子领域分类信息很难获得。在说明性的物理学研究中，子领域按《物理评论》期刊指定的组进行处理。虽然这些文章集代表了物理学文献的大部分内容，但它不是全部文献，也不是随机样本。实际意义称赞单个科学家的方法所带来的后果超出了个体，并影响了整个子领域和机构的感知影响。独创性/价值文章介绍了计量方法论对门徒子领域的影响，方法是引入系统的理论框架来衡量其后果。