Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries

Kulczycki, Emanuel; Engels, Tim; Pölönen, Janne; Bruun, Kasper; Dušková, Marta; Guns, Raf; Nowotniak, Robert; Petr, Michal; Sivertsen, Gunnar; Starčič, Andreja Istenic; Zuccala, Alesia A.

doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2711-0

Cited by 156 publications

(141 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The main objects analyzed in this paper are scholarly journals and communities gathered around them. Scholarly journals have grown in relevance as outlet for communicating research results in the social sciences and humanities (Kulczycki, Engels, Pölönen, Bruun, Dušková, Guns, Nowotniak, Petr, Sivertsen, Istenič Starčič, and Zuccala 2018), following a trend that began in the natural sciences a century earlier (Csiszar 2018). Over the last two decades, in the context of the publish-or-perish environment, where academic careers of scholars depend more and more on the "quality" of the journals in which they have published their articles, journals have gained a new importance as brands (Heckman and Moktan 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second reason is that scholars in the three fields differ in the way they use scholarly journals as outlet for publishing research results. While in statistics journals articles are largely dominant, scholars in economics and in information and library sciences continue to write book chapters and books (Kulczycki, Engels, Pölönen, Bruun, Dušková, Guns, Nowotniak, Petr, Sivertsen, Istenič Starčič, and Zuccala 2018). Hence the similarity analysis considered three different scholarly communication contexts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intellectual and social similarity among scholarly journals: An exploratory comparison of the networks of editors, authors and co-citations

Baccini

Barabesi

Khelfaoui

et al. 2020

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores, by using suitable quantitative techniques, to what extent the intellectual proximity among scholarly journals is also a proximity in terms of social communities gathered around the journals. Three fields are considered: statistics, economics and information and library sciences. Co-citation networks (CC) represent the intellectual proximity among journals.The academic communities around the journals are represented by considering the networks of journals generated by authors writing in more than one journal (interlocking authorship: IA), and the networks generated by scholars sitting in the editorial board of more than one journal (interlocking editorship: IE). For comparing the whole structure of the networks, the dissimilarity matrices are considered. The CC, IE and IA networks appear to be correlated for the three fields. The strongest correlations is between CC and IA for the three fields. Lower and similar correlations are obtained for CC and IE, and for IE and IA. The CC, IE and IA networks are then partitioned in communities. Information and library sciences is the field where communities are more easily detectable, while the most difficult field is economics. The degrees of association among the detected communities show that they are not independent. For all the fields, the strongest association is between CC and IA networks; the minimum level of association is between IE and CC. Overall, these results indicate that the intellectual proximity is also a proximity among authors and among editors of the journals. Thus, the three maps of editorial power, intellectual proximity and authors communities tell similar stories.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intellectual and social similarity among scholarly journals: An exploratory comparison of the networks of editors, authors and co-citations

Baccini

Barabesi

Khelfaoui

et al. 2020

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The type of vehicle chosen to disseminate the findings also tends to vary. Book chapters and monographs are researchers' options of choice both when publishing their own findings and when seeking those of others in the literature (Hicks, 2004;Nederhof, 2006;Kulczycki et al, 2018). SSH collaboration also deviates from the general pattern, with a prevalence of singly authored texts and scant inter-institutional partnering.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bibliometric and Altmetric Analysis of Three Social Science Disciplines

Filippo

Casado

2018

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses scientific publications of international prestige in three social science disciplines (communication, economics, and sociology) to identify possible production patterns. Emphasis is placed on the study of impact and visibility, both through bibliometric and altmetric indicators to determine similarities and differences and to establish possible inter-variable relationships. The use of measures such as the presence in social media for the study of the visibility of documents is discussed. A total of 112,300 papers published from 2013 to 2015 in the three disciplines analyzed was retrieved from the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). Economics accounted for the largest number and was observed to have a "stable" and consolidated output profile. Collaboration, impact, and visibility were found to be inter-related in the three fields. The proportion of papers with mentions in the social media was high (around 50%) in communication and sociology, suggesting a relationship between the object of study and the medium for disseminating the findings. Tweets were the most common type of mentions. While the correlation between academic impact (citation/doc) and mentions in blog posts and tweets was observed to be low, the percentage of papers cited (78 to 96%) and the mean number of citations per paper were greater among those with than those without mentions in the social media (especially those mentioned in Google+, MSM, videos, and Wikipedia). The proportion of open access (OA) papers with mentions in the social media was higher than the percentage of open access papers as a whole in two of the three disciplines.

show abstract

“…An important question this study raises is related to the evaluation of research in the humanities. The differences we observed in the study with respect to publication cultures between science and humanities specialisms have been illustrated before [van Leeuwen et al, 2016;Kulczycki et al, 2018] by showing the diversity of output types coming from the humanities versus the more monotone rhythm of journal publishing from natural sciences. Previous literature has also considered citation patterns over time, connected to the speed of knowledge becoming obsolete [Colavizza, 2017], and the way references are used [Knievel & Kellsey, 2005].…”

Section: ) Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

An empirical investigation of the tribes and their territories: Are research specialisms rural and urban?

Colavizza

Franssen

Leeuwen

2019

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose an operationalization of the rural and urban analogy introduced in Becher and Trowler [2001]. According to them, a specialism is rural if it is organized into many, smaller topics of research, with higher author mobility among them, lower rate of collaboration and productivity, lower competition for resources and citation recognitions compared to an urban specialism. It is assumed that most humanities specialisms are rural while science specialisms are in general urban: we set to test this hypothesis empirically. We first propose an operationalization of the theory in most of its quantifiable aspects. We then consider specialisms from history, literature, computer science, biology, astronomy. Our results show that specialisms in the humanities present a sensibly lower citation and textual connectivity, in agreement with their organization into more, smaller topics per specialism, as suggested by the analogy. We argue that the intellectual organization of rural specialisms might indeed be qualitative different from urban ones, discouraging the straightforward application of citation-based indicators commonly applied to urban specialisms without a dedicated re-design in acknowledgement of these differences.

show abstract

Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries

Cited by 156 publications

References 19 publications

Intellectual and social similarity among scholarly journals: An exploratory comparison of the networks of editors, authors and co-citations

Intellectual and social similarity among scholarly journals: An exploratory comparison of the networks of editors, authors and co-citations

Bibliometric and Altmetric Analysis of Three Social Science Disciplines

An empirical investigation of the tribes and their territories: Are research specialisms rural and urban?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About