Search

In non-English-speaking countries the measurement of research output in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using standard bibliographic databases suffers from a major drawback: the underrepresentation of articles published in local, non-English, journals. Using papers indexed (1) in a local database of periodicals (Érudit) and (2) in the Web of Science, assigned to the population of university professors in the province of Québec, this paper quantifies, for individual researchers and departments, the importance of papers published in local journals. It also analyzes differences across disciplines and between French-speaking and English-speaking universities. The results show that, while the addition of papers published in local journals to bibliometric measures has little effect when all disciplines are considered and for anglophone universities, it increases the output of researchers from francophone universities in the social sciences and humanities by almost a third. It also shows that there is very little relation, at the level of individual researchers or departments, between the output indexed in the Web of Science and the output retrieved from the Érudit database; a clear demonstration that the Web of Science cannot be used as a proxy for the 'overall' production of SSH researchers in Québec. The paper concludes with a discussion on these disciplinary and language differences, as well as on their implications for rankings of universities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study presents and explains the phenomenon of indexjacking, which involves the systematic infiltration of hijacked journals into international indexing databases, with Scopus being one of the most infiltrated among these databases. Through an analysis of known lists of hijacked journals, the study identified at least 67 hijacked journals that have penetrated Scopus since 2013. Of these, 33 journals indexed unauthorized content in Scopus and 23 compromised the homepage link in the journal's profile, while 11 did both. As of September 2023, 41 hijacked journals are still compromising the data of legitimate journals in Scopus. The presence of hijacked journals in Scopus is a challenge for scientific integrity due to the legitimization of unreliable papers that have not undergone peer review and compromises the quality of the Scopus database. The presence of hijacked journals in Scopus has far‐reaching effects. Papers published in these journals may be cited, and unauthorized content from these journals in Scopus is thus imported into other databases, including ORCID and the WHO COVID‐19 Research Database. This poses a particular challenge for research evaluation in those countries, where cloned versions of approved journals may be used to acquire publications and verifying their authenticity can be difficult. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper compares the rate of citation-capture across the social sciences, sciences, business school disciplines and economics. It also explores differences in the rate of citation-capture between leading journals in economics and a representative science category, and between higher and lower ranked economics journals. Short-term citation counting as used in impact factors and journal ranking schemes is shown to favour sciences over social sciences. In addition, within economics, short-term impact factors are systematically biased towards lower ranked journals. Our results imply that the use of leading multidisciplinary journal rankings as a proxy for direct citations introduces an unreported bias in research assessment. Such biases are in addition to those attributable to the well-known differences in the total number of cites received by papers across various disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross‐sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706–1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross‐sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706–1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the 1990s, with the heightened competition and the strong growth of the international higher education market, an increasing number of rankings have been created that measure the scientific performance of an institution based on data. The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 ( LR) was published early in 2012. Starting from Goldstein and Spiegelhalter's (1996) recommendations for conducting quantitative comparisons among institutions, in this study we undertook a reformulation of the LR by means of multilevel regression models. First, with our models we replicated the ranking results; second, the reanalysis of the LR data showed that only 5% of the PPtop10% total variation is attributable to differences between universities. Beyond that, about 80% of the variation between universities can be explained by differences among countries. If covariates are included in the model the differences among most of the universities become meaningless. Our findings have implications for conducting university rankings in general and for the LR in particular. For example, with Goldstein-adjusted confidence intervals, it is possible to interpret the significance of differences among universities meaningfully: Rank differences among universities should be interpreted as meaningful only if their confidence intervals do not overlap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we show how the Eigenfactor score, originally designed for ranking scholarly journals, can be adapted to rank the scholarly output of authors, institutions, and countries based on author-level citation data. Using the methods described in this article, we provide Eigenfactor rankings for 84,808 disambiguated authors of 240,804 papers in the Social Science Research Network ( SSRN)-a preprint and postprint archive devoted to the rapid dissemination of scholarly research in the social sciences and humanities. As an additive metric, the Eigenfactor scores are readily computed for collectives such as departments or institutions as well. We show that a collective's Eigenfactor score can be computed either by summing the Eigenfactor scores of its members or by working directly with a collective-level cross-citation matrix. We provide Eigenfactor rankings for institutions and countries in the SSRN repository. With a network-wide comparison of Eigenfactor scores and download tallies, we demonstrate that Eigenfactor scores provide information that is both different from and complementary to that provided by download counts. We see author-level ranking as one filter for navigating the scholarly literature, and note that such rankings generate incentives for more open scholarship, because authors are rewarded for making their work available to the community as early as possible and before formal publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For measuring multilevel impact, we introduce the distributive h-indices, which balance two important components (breadth and strength) of multilevel impact at various citing levels. After exploring the theoretical properties of these indices, we studied two cases: 57 library and information science ( LIS) journals and social science research in 38 European countries/territories. Results reveal that there are approximate power-law relations between distributive h-indices and some underlying citation indicators, such as total citations, total citing entities, and the h-index. Distributive h-indices provide comprehensive measures for multilevel impact, and lead to a potential tool for citation analysis, particularly at aggregative levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The amount of annually published scholarly articles is growing steadily, as is the number of indicators through which impact of publications is measured. Little is known about how the increasing variety of available metrics affects researchers' processes of selecting literature to read. We conducted ranking experiments embedded into an online survey with 247 participating researchers, most from social sciences. Participants completed series of tasks in which they were asked to rank fictitious publications regarding their expected relevance, based on their scores regarding six prototypical metrics. Through applying logistic regression, cluster analysis, and manual coding of survey answers, we obtained detailed data on how prominent metrics for research impact influence our participants in decisions about which scientific articles to read. Survey answers revealed a combination of qualitative and quantitative characteristics that researchers consult when selecting literature, while regression analysis showed that among quantitative metrics, citation counts tend to be of highest concern, followed by Journal Impact Factors. Our results suggest a comparatively favorable view of many researchers on bibliometrics and widespread skepticism toward altmetrics. The findings underline the importance of equipping researchers with solid knowledge about specific metrics' limitations, as they seem to play significant roles in researchers' everyday relevance assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of indicators and metrics for research evaluation purposes is well‐documented; however, less is known about their use by individual scholars. With a focus on the social sciences, this article contributes to the existing literature on indicators and metrics use in fields with diverse publication practices. Scholars in Australia and Sweden were asked about their use and reasons for using metrics. A total of 581 completed surveys were analyzed to generate descriptive statistics, with textual analysis performed on comments provided to open questions. While just under half of the participant group had used metrics, the Australians reported use in twice the proportion of their Swedish peers. Institutional policies and processes were frequently associated with use, and the scholars' comments suggest a high level of awareness of some metrics as well as strategic behavior in demonstrating research performance. There is also evidence of tensions between scholars' research evaluation environment and their disciplinary values and publication practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The ‘age of metrics’ or ‘the metric tide’ in the form of bibliometrics has largely by‐passed Social Policy. This study aims to broaden the focus from the most cited articles in Social Policy journals to discover the most cited works in Social Policy or ‘Social Policy's Greatest Hits’. It finds some 24 works with over 2000 Google Scholar citations, but only nine of these are by social policy writers. In terms of total citations, Gosta Esping‐Andersen's The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism is the clear leader by a significant margin, with the most cited Social Policy (or Social Administration) writers being Peter Townsend, Richard Titmuss, Ruth Lister and Jane Lewis. In addition to total citations, it presents citations per year, and ‘Social Policy citations’ (i.e. the use made of the work within the discipline of Social Policy). This list is headed by Gosta Esping‐Andersen and Paul Pierson, with the leading social policy writer being Jane Lewis. This article presents a set of the ‘most plausible contenders’ for the works with greatest influence within Social Policy or ‘Social Policy's Greatest Hits’. It is concluded that, even with its flaws, bibliometrics is an important approach to exploring the vast field of Social Policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We propose a minimum span clustering (MSC) method for clustering and visualizing complex networks using the interrelationship of network components. To demonstrate this method, it is applied to classify the social science network in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) Journal Citation Reports. This method of network classification is shown to be efficient, with a processing time that is linear to network size. The classification results provide an in-depth view of the network structure at various scales of resolution. For the social science network, there are 4 resolution scales, including 294 batches of journals at the highest scale, 65 categories of journals at the second, 15 research groups at the third scale, and 3 knowledge domains at the lowest resolution. By comparing the relatedness of journals within clusters, we show that our clustering method gives a better classification of social science journals than ISI's heuristic approach and hierarchical clustering. In combination with the minimum spanning tree approach and multi-dimensional scaling, MSC is also used to investigate the general structure of the network and construct a map of the social science network for visualization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross-disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross-disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Author research impact was examined based on citer analysis (the number of citers as opposed to the number of citations) for 90 highly cited authors grouped into three broad subject areas. Citer-based outcome measures were also compared with more traditional citation-based measures for levels of association. The authors found that there are significant differences in citer-based outcomes among the three broad subject areas examined and that there is a high degree of correlation between citer and citation-based measures for all measures compared, except for two outcomes calculated for the social sciences. Citer-based measures do produce slightly different rankings of authors based on citer counts when compared to more traditional citation counts. Examples are provided. Citation measures may not adequately address the influence, or reach, of an author because citations usually do not address the origin of the citation beyond self-citations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We argue that the communication structures in the Chinese social sciences have not yet been sufficiently reformed. Citation patterns among Chinese domestic journals in three subject areas—political science and Marxism, library and information science, and economics—are compared with their counterparts internationally. Like their colleagues in the natural and life sciences, Chinese scholars in the social sciences provide fewer references to journal publications than their international counterparts; like their international colleagues, social scientists provide fewer references than natural sciences. The resulting citation networks, therefore, are sparse. Nevertheless, the citation structures clearly suggest that the Chinese social sciences are far less specialized in terms of disciplinary delineations than their international counterparts. Marxism studies are more established than political science in China. In terms of the impact of the Chinese political system on academic fields, disciplines closely related to the political system are less specialized than those weakly related. In the discussion section, we explore reasons that may cause the current stagnation and provide policy recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%–5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The multidisciplinary character of the theories supporting research in the discipline of human resources management (HRM), the increasing importance of a more rigorous approach to HRM studies by academics, and the impact of HRM on the competitive advantage of firms are just some of the indicators demonstrating the relevance of this discipline in the broader field of the social sciences. These developments explain why a quantitative analysis of HRM studies based on bibliometric techniques is particularly opportune. The general objective of this article is to analyze the intellectual structure of the HRM discipline; this can be divided into two specific objectives. The first is to identify the most frequently cited studies, with the purpose of identifying the key topics of research in the HRM discipline. The second objective is to represent the networks of relationships between the most-cited studies, grouping them under common themes, with the object of providing a diagrammatic description of the knowledge base constituted by accumulated works of research in the HRM field. The methodology utilized is based on the bibliometric techniques of citation analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]