Використання бібліометрії в соціальних та гуманітарних науках

Назаровець, Сергій Використання бібліометрії в соціальних та гуманітарних науках., 2021 [Preprint]

[thumbnail of nazarovets_e-lis2021.docx.pdf]
Preview
 Text
nazarovets_e-lis2021.docx.pdf - Draft version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (238kB) | Preview

English abstract

The article presents a review of scientific papers on assessing the scientific impact of research in social sciences and humanities using bibliometrics. The review shows that in comparison with the natural sciences, the use of bibliometrics in the social sciences and humanities has its features. This is due to the fact that scientists in these disciplines actively use in their scientific work different languages, types of publications and citation practices. Researchers, managers and founders who use bibliometrics to assess the scientific impact of social sciences and humanities research should focus on specific assessment tasks and avoid the use of general bibliometric indicators.

Ukrainian abstract

У статті представлено огляд наукової літератури з оцінювання наукового впливу досліджень у соціальних та гуманітарних дисциплінах за допомогою бібліометрії. Огляд показує, що у порівнянні з природничими науками, використання бібліометрії в соціальних та гуманітарних науках має свої суттєві особливості. Передусім, це пов'язано з тим, що вчені у цих дисциплінах активно використовують у своїй науковій роботі різні мови, типи публікацій та практики цитування. Дослідники, управлінці та грантодавці, які використовують бібліометрію для оцінки наукового впливу соціогуманітарних досліджень повинні орієнтуватися на конкретні завдання оцінювання та уникати використання загальних бібліометричних показників.

Item type: Preprint
Keywords: bibliometrics; research evaluation; social sciences; humanities; language; books
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
Depositing user: Serhii Nazarovets
Date deposited: 23 Nov 2021 09:05
Last modified: 09 Dec 2021 08:17
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/42575

References

1. Abramo G., D’Angelo C.A. Evaluating research: From informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics. 2011. 87(3): 499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0352-7

2. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) https://sfdora.org/read/

3. Nederhof A.J. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review. Scientometrics. 2006. 66(1): 81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2

4. Archambault É., Vignola-Gagné É., Côté G., Larivière V., Gingrasb Y. Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics. 2006. 68(3): 329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0115-z

5. Wilsdon J., et al. The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. 2015. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363

6. Giménez-Toledo E., Mañana-Rodríguez J., Sivertsen G. Scholarly book publishing: Its information sources for evaluation in the social sciences and humanities. Research Evaluation. 2017. 26(2): 91. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx007

7. Kulczycki E., Korytkowski P. Researchers publishing monographs are more productive and more local-oriented. Scientometrics. 2020. 125(2):1371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03376-x

8. Zhang L., Sivertsen G. The New Research Assessment Reform in China and Its Implementation. Scholarly Assessment Reports. 2020. 2(1): 3. http://doi.org/10.29024/sar.15

9. White H.D., Boell S.K., Yu H., Davis M., Wilson C.S., Cole F.T. Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 2009. 60(6):1083. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21045

10. Peroni S., Shotton D. OpenCitations, an infrastructure organization for open scholarship. Quantitative Science Studies. 2020. 1(1):428. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00023

11. Hendricks G., Tkaczyk D., Lin J., Feeney P. Crossref: The sustainable source of community-owned scholarly metadata. Quantitative Science Studies. 2020. 1(1): 414. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00022

12. Martín-Martín A., Thelwall M., Orduna-Malea E., Delgado López-Cózar E. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4

13. Nieminen P., Carpenter J., Rucker G. et al. The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006. 6(42) https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-42

14. Marx W., Bornmann L. On the causes of subject-specific citation rates in Web of Science. Scientometrics. 2014. 102(2):1823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1499-9

15. Nederhof A.J. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review. Scientometrics. 2006. 66(1):81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2

16. Garfield E. Citation indexes for retrieval and research evaluation. In: Consensus Conference on the Theory and Practice of Research Assessment. (October 7, 1996, Capri, Italy).

17. Cronin B., Snyder H., Atkins, H. Comparative Citation Rankings of Authors in Monographic and Journal Literature: A Study of Sociology. Journal of Documentation. 1997. 53(3):263.

18. Gingras Y., Khelfaoui M. Do we need a book citation index for research evaluation? Research Evaluation. 2019. 28(4):383. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz024

19. Ma L., Ladisch M. Evaluation complacency or evaluation inertia? A study of evaluative metrics and research practices in Irish universities. Research Evaluation. 2019. 28(3):209. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz008

20. East J.W. The Scholarly Book Review in the Humanities: An Academic Cinderella? Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 2011. 43(1):52. https://doi.org/10.1353/scp.2011.0046

21. Hammarfelt B. Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics. 2014. 101(2):1419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1261-3

22. Pedersen D.B., Grønvad J. F., Hvidtfeldt R. Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities—A literature review. Research Evaluation. 2020. 29(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz033

23. Liu W. The changing role of non-English papers in scholarly communication: Evidence from Web of Science’s three journal citation indexes. Learned Publishing. 2017. 30(2):115. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1089

24. Stockemer D., Wigginton, M. J. Publishing in English or another language : An inclusive study of scholars language publication preferences in the natural, social and interdisciplinary sciences. Scientometrics. 2019. 118(2):645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2987-0

25. Kulczycki E., Engels T.C.E., Pölönen J., Bruun K., Dušková M., Guns R., et al. Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics. 2018. 116(1):463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2711-0

26. Hyland K. Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2016. 31(1):58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005

27. Gong K., Xie J., Cheng Y., Larivière V., Sugimoto C.R. The citation advantage of foreign language references for Chinese social science papers. Scientometrics. 2019. 120(3):1439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03146-4

28. Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7887059.

29. Sivertsen G. Balanced multilingualism in science. BiD: Textos Universitaris de Biblioteconomia i Documentacio. 2018. (40). https://doi.org/10.1344/BiD2018.40.25

30. Sivertsen G. Publication-based funding: The Norwegian model. In: Research Assessment in the Humanities: Towards Criteria and Procedures. (ed. Ochsner M., Hug S.E., Daniel H.-D.). (Springer, 2016). P. 79. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_7

31. Nazarovets S., Teixeira da Silva J.A., Nazarovets M. Challenge of Ukrainian academic librarians in an evolving scholarly publishing landscape. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2019. 45(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.11.001

32. Nazarovets S. Controversial practice of rewarding for publications in national journals. Scientometrics. 2020. 124(1):813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03485-7

33. Hammarfelt B., Haddow G. Conflicting measures and values: How humanities scholars in Australia and Sweden use and react to bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2018. 69(7):924. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24043

34. Ossenblok T.L.B., Engels T.C.E., Sivertsen G. The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science—A comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005-9). Research Evaluation. 2012. 21(4):280. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs019

35. Butler L. Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation. 2003. 12(1):39. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154403781776780

36. Zhang L., Sivertsen G. The New Research Assessment Reform in China and Its Implementation. Scholarly Assessment Reports. 2020. 2(1):3. http://doi.org/10.29024/sar.15

37. Bonaccorsi A. Two Decades of Research Assessment in Italy. Addressing the Criticisms. Scholarly Assessment Reports. 2020. 2(1):17. http://doi.org/10.29024/sar.28

38. Mryglod O., Nazarovets S. Scientometrics and management of scientific activities: once again about the global and Ukrainian. Visn. Nac. Acad. Nauk Ukr. 2019. (9):81. https://doi.org/10.15407/visn2019.09.081

39. Mas-Bleda A., Thelwall M. Do prestigious Spanish scholarly book publishers have more teaching impact? Aslib Journal of Information Management. 2018. 70(6):673. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-04-2018-0094

40. Kulczycki E., Rozkosz E.A., Engels T.C.E., Guns R., Hołowiecki M., Pölönen J. How to identify peer-reviewed publications: Open-identity labels in scholarly book publishing. PLOS ONE. 2019. 14(3):e0214423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214423

41. Soares F., Yamashita G.H. On the crucial role of multilingual biomedical databases on epidemic events (SARS-CoV-2 analysis). International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2020. 96:352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.023


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS