A comparison of cognitive and organizational classification of publications in the social sciences and humanities

Guns, Raf; Sīle, Linda; Eykens, Joshua; Verleysen, Frederik T.; Engels, Tim

doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2775-x

Cited by 21 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…on the basis of national databases. Guns et al (2017) have analysed the discrepancy between these two ways of classifying publications in the social sciences and humanities. They show that, in the VABB-SHW, 70% of publications from the humanities are published in humanities journals, while only 53% of publications from the social sciences are published in social sciences journals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates patterns in the language and type of social sciences and humanities (SSH) publications in non-English speaking European countries to demonstrate that such patterns are related not only to discipline but also to each country's cultural and historic heritage. We investigate publication patterns that occur across SSH publications of the whole of the SSH and of economics and business, law, and philosophy and theology publications in the Czech Republic,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to regular metadata such as title, authors, and journal, the database also contains information per publication on language, WoS indexation, and peer review status as determined in the context of the PRFS. Each publication is assigned to one or more disciplines according to an organizational classification, i.e., a classification based on the departments or units to which the authors belong (Guns et al, 2018). The social sciences consist of 8 disciplines: Criminology, Economics & business, Educational sciences, Political sciences, Psychology, Social health sciences, Sociology, and Social sciences general.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

To What Extent Do Successive Cohorts Adopt Different Publication Patterns? Peer Review, Language Use, and Publication Types in the Social Sciences and Humanities

Guns

Eykens

Engels

2019

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a cohort analysis to study changes in the publication patterns of scholars working at a social sciences and humanities (SSH) university department or research unit in Flanders, Belgium. Starting from a comprehensive bibliographic database, we analyze the peer review status, publication language, publication type (journal article, book publication, or proceedings), and coverage in Web of Science (WoS) for publications produced between 2000 and 2014. Through a cohort analysis of the authors, a distinction can be made between effects that reflect changes in the characteristics of how researchers of comparable seniority publish (intracohort change) and effects that are due to the disappearance of researchers and/or introduction of new researchers (cohort succession). Our findings indicate that there is a trend across all five cohorts and in both the social sciences and humanities toward peer review, use of English, and publishing in WoS-indexed journals. While we witness clear intracohort changes, cohort succession effects are shown to be much weaker. The oldest cohort appears to maintain a traditional SSH profile, with lower shares of peer-reviewed publications, publications in English, journal articles, and publications indexed in WoS. As for publication types, all cohorts exhibit a slightly declining share of journal articles over time in favor of book publications, particularly in the humanities. The study shows that cohort analysis is a useful instrument to gain better insight into the evolution of publication patterns.

show abstract

“…Leydesdorff and Salah (2010) map the cognitive structure of a small part of the humanities-two journals-and show that the role of the journal does not provide the same socio-cognitive structure as journals do in other scientific domains. In a larger study, Leydesdorff, Hammarfelt, and Salah (2011) did an explorative analysis of the cognitive structure of the entire A&HCI and compared this to various other proposed structures of the humanities (for instance, a departmental structure of a faculty; see also Guns, Sīle, Eykens, Verleysen, & Engels, 2018).…”

Section: The Second Period Of Bibliometric Scholarshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These results confirm the earlier work in science mapping by Leydesdorff, Hammarfelt & Salah (2011) and open up a new avenue of research. While they still lack reference data, Guns et al (2018) have found a way to study the cognitive structure of the humanities and relate it to its social structure without reference data.…”

Section: The Second Period Of Bibliometric Scholarshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science and its significant other: Representing the humanities in bibliometric scholarship

Franssen

Wouters

2019

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cognitive and social structures, and publication practices, of the humanities have been studied bibliometrically for the past 50 years. This article explores the conceptual frameworks, methods, and data sources used in bibliometrics to study the nature of the humanities, and its differences and similarities in comparison with other scientific domains. We give a historical overview of bibliometric scholarship between 1965 and 2018 that studies the humanities empirically and distinguishes between two periods in which the configuration of the bibliometric system differs remarkably. The first period, 1965 to the 1980s, is characterized by bibliometric methods embedded in a sociological theoretical framework, the development and use of the Price Index, and small samples of journal publications from which references are used as data sources. The second period, the 1980s to the present day, is characterized by a new intellectual hinterland—that of science policy and research evaluation—in which bibliometric methods become embedded. Here metadata of publications becomes the primary data source with which publication profiles of humanistic scholarly communities are analyzed. We unpack the differences between these two periods and critically discuss the analytical avenues that different approaches offer.

show abstract

A comparison of cognitive and organizational classification of publications in the social sciences and humanities

Cited by 21 publications

References 24 publications

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

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

To What Extent Do Successive Cohorts Adopt Different Publication Patterns? Peer Review, Language Use, and Publication Types in the Social Sciences and Humanities

Science and its significant other: Representing the humanities in bibliometric scholarship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About