Publication and Citation Patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A National Perspective

Pajić, Dejan; Jevremov, Tanja; Škorić, Marko M.

doi:10.29173/cjs29214

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, it is supported by the current scientometric practices, which face numerous critiques. Researchers in the social sciences and humanities should not rely on “laissez faire attitude and wait for these criticisms to change the new reality of science accountability as this is very unlikely to happen” (Pajic et al, 2019, p. 89). Adopting the LDI proposed in this article might be one of the active strategies that researchers might employ.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic Diversity Index: A Scientometric Measure to Enhance the Relevance of Small and Minority Group Languages

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current scientometric indexes do not encourage the linguistic diversity of sources cited in academic texts and researchers are not motivated to cite texts written in smaller languages. This diminishes the cultural diversity of the sources cited and limits the representation of small and indigenous cultures. This text proposes a scientometric measure designed to encourage the linguistic diversity of sources cited in articles, books, and papers. The Linguistic Diversity Index is based on two stipulations: (a) the more linguistically diverse the sources, the higher the score, and (b) the rarer the languages cited, the higher the score. If such a metric were used for the evaluation of social science and humanities journals, it would encourage the publication of papers that cite ideas from rarely represented cultural groups such as indigenous nations, ethnic groups from small countries, and other linguistic groups that have been omitted from mainstream scientific discourse. This might help to produce new research, which would help to improve the situation for these groups and create an epistemology that is more just to small cultural groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic Diversity Index: A Scientometric Measure to Enhance the Relevance of Small and Minority Group Languages

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This question is further complicated when looking at different databases to evaluate the quality of scientific papers (Figure 4). It is widely agreed that within the social sciences and humanities (SSH), databases such as Web of Science and Scopus do not adequately capture publications from non-English speaking countries (Mateo, 2015;Reale et al, 2018;Pajić et al, 2019). In the case of Brazil, a large percentage of papers are published in Scielo (Scientific Electronic Library Online) or Redalyc (Sistema de Información Científica Redalyc Red de Revistas Científicas) based journals, which do not facilitate citation impact data, and therefore often ignored in the CAPES evaluation.…”

Section: Comparing Indicators Used In Capes and Metrics From Internat...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the Brazilian postgraduate evaluation system

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study provided an overview of evaluation data from the “Sucupira Platform,” questionnaires with post-graduate deans, discussion forums, and international databases to assess the Brazilian post-graduate evaluation system. The system is highly standardised and homogenous throughout the country with little flexibility. There is a disconnect with ongoing changes in international graduate studies, especially regarding the possibility of adopting flexible and temporary doctoral projects in international partnerships. The evaluation focuses mainly on process, not results, impact, and social relevance. Although the current system requires strategic planning and self-assessment, these are not used when evaluating results. The system should be sensitive to differences, valuing the diversity of institutional projects. Changes in the evaluation require a clear timeline and careful definition of indicators. The improvement of information collection must occur in coordination with CNPq, and the new data collecting platform must be able to import information from various sources (RAIS, Lattes, WIPO, PrInt, etc.). According to their purposes, the separate indication in CAPES’ spreadsheets on the legal status of private and community/confessional institutions is fundamental for improved data analysis. The assignment of grades rather than scores (e.g., in implementation, consolidated nationally/internationally) is questioned.

show abstract

“…Es evidente que existen dificultades que deben enfrentar los académicos del área de Humanidades en distintas regiones del mundo. Así, en el caso de los investigadores serbios, ellos tienden a citar fuentes nacionales, preferentemente literatura antigua y dichas fuentes provienen no necesariamente de artículos (Pajić et al, 2019). Esta práctica se repite en otras regiones del mundo; incluso se cuestiona el formato de las publicaciones que solicitan las revistas como son los papers o los artículos, ya que se considera como una forma de control del discurso (Santos, 2012).…”

Section: Promoción Y Publicaciones Científicas En Humanidadesunclassified

A qualitative approach to scientific publications in the Humanities: the researchers' point of view

Guillén-Chávez¹,

Núñez-Pacheco²,

Barreda-Parra³

et al. 2022

New Trends in Qualitative Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in the Humanities is a field that has been gaining relevance in recent years. However, their production and impact levels are still low. In this sense, this article aims to analyze three categories that correspond to the motivations and competencies of the researcher in Humanities, the strategies for promoting research and publication in the Humanities, and the impact of publications in this area of knowledge. The qualitative approach was used through content analysis. A non-probabilistic sampling of international Humanities expert researchers was carried out. In this study participated seventeen professors from 13 institutions of higher-level education. The webQDA software was used for data analysis. The main results concerning the motivations show that the most relevant for the respondents are disseminating their research (20,59%). Regarding the competencies of the researcher, 33,33% indicated that they do possess these competencies and have a genuine interest in their object of study. Concerning the promotion of research, 30% highlighted that the university offers monetary incentives for publication and different seedbeds to encourage its academics' research. About the impact of the publications, 24% of the researchers pointed out that the natural sciences impose the criteria; and, finally, 76,47% indicated that the H index or the number of citations of a scientific article is not appropriate to assess the impact in the area of the Humanities. In conclusion, these results suggest that Humanities researchers need their scientific and academic production to be evaluated using criteria different from those generally used in science and technology according to the characteristics and nature of their field of study.

show abstract

Publication and Citation Patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A National Perspective

Cited by 12 publications

References 41 publications

Linguistic Diversity Index: A Scientometric Measure to Enhance the Relevance of Small and Minority Group Languages

Linguistic Diversity Index: A Scientometric Measure to Enhance the Relevance of Small and Minority Group Languages

Assessment of the Brazilian postgraduate evaluation system

A qualitative approach to scientific publications in the Humanities: the researchers' point of view

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About