No abstract

No abstract

We present a novel way to frame a discussion of changes in publication patterns that occur in a context of performance-based research funding systems (PRFSs). Adopting an approach derived from social epistemology, we foreground the dialectical nature of knowledge. This allows us to relate changes in publication patterns to PRFS and show the tensions that emerge between relatively diverse research fields with diverse publication practices and bibliometric indicators within PRFSs that reinforce a singular view of research goals. Specifically, we highlight that the employment of bibliometric indicators result in a fixed hierarchy among communication media that may be at odds with the goals within research fields subjected to PRFSs. These ideas are illustrated with an empirical analysis of changes in publication patterns within the field of educational research at the University of Gothenburg (GU; 2005-2014) in Sweden. We contrast the observed changes with implicit priorities in the national and institutional PRFS that operate in this context since 2009. Findings from bibliometric analysis indicate a move away from publication traditions that used to be characteristic of educational research: the growth in the number of journal articles is greater than that in the number of book chapters, while the number of reports is on a declining slope. In relation to PRFSs, we show that conclusive judgement on the desirability of the observed changes is hardly achievable. If one adopts the aims implicit in PRFS, research performance appears to be enhanced. If one sides with the views of many educational researchers, then some of the trends might be an indication of undesirable changes.

No abstract

No abstract

Despite the centrality of disciplinary classifications in bibliometric analyses, it is not well known how the choice of disciplinary classification influences bibliometric representations of research in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). This is especially crucial when using data from national databases. Therefore we examine the differences in the disciplinary profile of an article along with the absolute and relative number of articles across disciplines using five disciplinary classifications for journals. We use data on journal articles (2006-2015) from the national bibliographic databases VABB-SHW in Flanders (Belgium) and Cristin in Norway. Our study is based on pairwise comparisons of the local classifications used in these databases, the Web of Science subject categories, the Science-Metrix and the ERIH PLUS journal classifications. For comparability, all classifications are mapped to the OECD Fields of Research and Development classification. The findings show that the choice of the disciplinary classification can lead to over- or under-estimation of the absolute number of publications per discipline. In contrast, if the focus is on the relative numbers, the choice of classification has practically no influence. These findings facilitate an informed choice of a disciplinary classification for journals in SSH when using data from national databases.

The increasing use of research metrics in the monitoring and evaluation of research has led to the expansion of research information infrastructure, as indicated by the rising number of national databases for research output and research information systems. At the same time, debates on requirements of national databases for research output are typically guided by simplistic assumptions about what an infrastructure is and how it shapes our understanding of different phenomena. We present an alternative framing of databases wherein infrastructure and context are seen as mutually constitutive. Drawing upon qualitative data on 12 national databases in Europe, we investigate the role that databases for research output play in research metrics and consequently in our understanding of research activities. Specifically, we bring to the surface database features that are typically left implicit and yet are crucial for understanding these databases in context. A key outcome of this study is an identification of two database logics—New Public Management and Enlightenment—that underpin database designs and the organization of database work. These logics do not merely guide practical database work (e.g. by determining the features of highest priority), but through the outcomes of that work they both enact and distribute a particular conception of what research is. In this article, we show how the two logics manifest and how they are related to each other. Situating these findings in the landscape of developments in research information infrastructure, we discuss implications for research evaluation and the understanding of research in general.

PurposeThis study investigates an approach to book metrics for research evaluation that takes into account the complexity of scholarly monographs. This approach is based on work sets – unique scholarly works and their within-work related bibliographic entities – for scholarly monographs in national databases for research output.Design/methodology/approachThis study examines bibliographic records on scholarly monographs acquired from four European databases (VABB in Flanders, Belgium; CROSBI in Croatia; CRISTIN in Norway; COBISS in Slovenia). Following a data enrichment process using metadata from OCLC WorldCat and Amazon Goodreads, the authors identify work sets and the corresponding ISBNs. Next, on the basis of the number of ISBNs per work set and the presence in WorldCat, they design a typology of scholarly monographs: Globally visible single-expression works, Globally visible multi-expression works, Miscellaneous and Globally invisible works.FindingsThe findings show that the concept “work set” and the proposed typology can aid the identification of influential scholarly monographs in the social sciences and humanities (i.e. the Globally visible multi-expression works).Practical implicationsIn light of the findings, the authors outline requirements for the bibliographic control of scholarly monographs in national databases for research output that facilitate the use of the approach proposed here.Originality/valueThe authors use insights from library and information science (LIS) to construct complexity-sensitive book metrics. In doing so, the authors, on the one hand, propose a solution to a problem in research evaluation and, on the other hand, bring to attention the need for a dialogue between LIS and neighbouring communities that work with bibliographic data.