Specialization indicators in scientometrics: Understanding the Activity Index and the F-measure through their underlying components

This study provides a conceptual and analytical clarification of the Activity Index (AI) and the F-measure by identifying the structural relationships with their underlying share components and explaining their context-dependent properties. We conduct both an algebraic and empirical analysis of the relation among these indicators in two analytical contexts: Countries Specialization Comparison (comparing the specialization of multiple countries within a fixed domain) and Domains Comparison (comparing specialization across multiple domains within a fixed country). To examine the indicators’ dependencies, we compute Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients between the indicators and their underlying share components, DShareC (a domain’s share of a country’s output) and CShareD (a country’s share of world output in that domain), using bibliometric data from InCites and OpenAlex covering >200 countries across 22 and 26 research fields over the period 1980–2024. We show that the AI and the F-measure exhibit a mirrored asymmetrical association with their underlying share components across the two analytical contexts. For Countries Comparison, the AI is rank-equivalent to DShareC for comparing countries within a fixed domain, whereas the F-measure operates as a proxy for CShareD. In the Domains Comparison, this pattern reverses: the AI becomes rank-equivalent to CShareD for comparing domains within a fixed country, whereas the F-measure is modulated by the volume of national output, correlating with DShareC in high-output countries and with CShareD in low-output countries. These findings clarify that the interpretation of specialization indicators depends on the analytical context in which they are applied. These results provide a conceptual framework for interpreting specialization indicators in scientometric evaluations and clear criteria for indicator selection, distinguishing between measures of internal research prioritization and global participation in scientific output.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Informetrics
Published
2026-09-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2026.101880
Primary Topic
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Specialization indicators in scientometrics: Understanding the Activity Index and the F-measure through their underlying components

Ricardo Arencibia Jorge, Jose Luis Jiménez-Andrade, Humberto Carrillo-Calvet
Journal of Informetrics
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
article

Specialization indicators in scientometrics: Understanding the Activity Index and the F-measure through their underlying components

Ricardo Arencibia Jorge, Jose Luis Jiménez-Andrade, Humberto Carrillo-Calvet
article en

Abstract

This study provides a conceptual and analytical clarification of the Activity Index (AI) and the F-measure by identifying the structural relationships with their underlying share components and explaining their context-dependent properties. We conduct both an algebraic and empirical analysis of the relation among these indicators in two analytical contexts: Countries Specialization Comparison (comparing the specialization of multiple countries within a fixed domain) and Domains Comparison (comparing specialization across multiple domains within a fixed country). To examine the indicators’ dependencies, we compute Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients between the indicators and their underlying share components, DShareC (a domain’s share of a country’s output) and CShareD (a country’s share of world output in that domain), using bibliometric data from InCites and OpenAlex covering >200 countries across 22 and 26 research fields over the period 1980–2024. We show that the AI and the F-measure exhibit a mirrored asymmetrical association with their underlying share components across the two analytical contexts. For Countries Comparison, the AI is rank-equivalent to DShareC for comparing countries within a fixed domain, whereas the F-measure operates as a proxy for CShareD. In the Domains Comparison, this pattern reverses: the AI becomes rank-equivalent to CShareD for comparing domains within a fixed country, whereas the F-measure is modulated by the volume of national output, correlating with DShareC in high-output countries and with CShareD in low-output countries. These findings clarify that the interpretation of specialization indicators depends on the analytical context in which they are applied. These results provide a conceptual framework for interpreting specialization indicators in scientometric evaluations and clear criteria for indicator selection, distinguishing between measures of internal research prioritization and global participation in scientific output.

Journal of InformetricsVol. 20(4)
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (MX)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.