  Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web-of-Science
Subject Categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in
evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World
University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization.
However, WCs 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 WCs attributed to journals in the field of
"science and technology studies," we show that WCs 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.

Digital Libraries;Computers and Society