Scholarly book publishing: Its information sources for evaluation in the social sciences and humanities

Giménez-Toledo, Elea; Mañana-Rodríguez, Jorge; Sivertsen, Gunnar

doi:10.1093/reseval/rvx007

Cited by 28 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies have contributed to a critical examination of how CRIS data are used for statistics, evaluation, and funding in research management, most often with suggestions for further development of data and indicators (Sivertsen & van Leeuwen, 2014;Diaz-Faes et al, 2016;Kulczycki, 2017;Savic et al, 2017;Giménez-Toledo et al, 2016;Giménez-Toledo et al, 2017;Giménez-Toledo et al, 2019), sometimes only describing potential negative effects of such use (Hammarfelt & De Rijcke, 2014).…”

Section: Examples Of Studies Of Ssh Research Based On More Comprehensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and Evaluating Research and Scholarly Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)

Sivertsen

2019

Data and Information Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internationalization is important for research quality and for specialization on new themes in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). Interaction with society, however, is just as important in these areas of research for realizing the ultimate aims of knowledge creation. This article demonstrates how the heterogenous publishing patterns of the SSH may reflect and fulfill both purposes. The limited coverage of the SSH in Scopus and Web of Science is discussed along with ideas about how to achieve a more complete representation of all the languages and publication types that are actually used in the SSH. A dynamic and empirical concept of balanced multilingualism is introduced to support combined strategies for internationalization and societal interaction. The argument is that all the communication purposes in all different areas of research, and all the languages and publication types needed to fulfill these purposes, should be considered in a holistic manner without exclusions or priorities whenever research in the SSH is evaluated.

show abstract

Section: Examples Of Studies Of Ssh Research Based On More Comprehensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and Evaluating Research and Scholarly Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)

Sivertsen

2019

Data and Information Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies have contributed to a critical examination of how CRIS data are used for statistics, evaluation and funding in research management, most often with suggestions for further development of data and indicators (Sivertsen & van Leeuwen, 2014;Diaz-Faes et al, 2016;Kulczycki, 2017;Savic et al, 2017;Giménez-Toledo et al, 2016;Giménez-Toledo et al, 2017), sometimes only describing potential negative effects of such use (Hammarfelt & de Rijcke, 2015).…”

Section: Research Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

The Norwegian Model in Norway

Sivertsen

2018

Journal of Data and Information Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The “Norwegian Model” attempts to comprehensively cover all the peer-reviewed scholarly literatures in all areas of research in one single weighted indicator. Thereby, scientific production is made comparable across departments and faculties within and between research institutions, and the indicator may serve institutional evaluation and funding. This article describes the motivation for creating the model in Norway, how it was designed, organized and implemented, as well as the effects and experiences with the model. The article ends with an overview of a new type of bibliometric studies that are based on the type of comprehensive national publication data that the Norwegian Model provides.

show abstract

“…Also to some extent, Flanders (Belgium) implemented authority lists into its system, based on a combination of Web of Science and regional comprehensive databases for the social sciences and humanities (Verleysen, Ghesquiere, & Engels, 2014). Moreover, in Spain an information system of publishers (the Spanish Scholarly Publishers Indicators) is used (Giménez-Toledo, Mañana-Rodríguez, & Sivertsen, 2017).…”

Section: Research Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

Redesigning the Model of Book Evaluation in the Polish Performance-based Research Funding System

Liu

He³

2018

Journal of Data and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to present the key systemic changes in the Polish book evaluation model to focus on the publisher list, as inspired by the Norwegian Model. Design/methodology/approach In this study we reconstruct the framework of the 2010 and 2018 models of book evaluation in Poland within the performance-based research funding system. Findings For almost 20 years the book evaluation system in Poland has been based on the verification of various technical criteria (e.g. length of the book). The new 2018 model is based on the principle of prestige inheritance (a book is worth as much as its publisher is) and is inspired by the publisher list used in the Norwegian Model. In this paper, we argue that this solution may be a more balanced policy instrument than the previous 2010 model in which neither the quality of the publisher nor the quality of the book played any role in the evaluation. Research limitations We work from the framework of the 2018 model of book evaluation specified in the law on higher education and science from 20 July 2018, as implementation acts are not available yet. Practical implications This study may provide a valuable point of reference on how structural reforms in the research evaluation model were implemented on a country level. The results of this study may be interesting to policy makers, stakeholders and researchers focused on science policy. Originality/value This is the very first study that presents the new framework of the Polish research evaluation model and policy instruments for scholarly book evaluation. We describe what motivated policy makers to change the book evaluation model, and what arguments were explicitly raised to argue for the new solution.

show abstract

Scholarly book publishing: Its information sources for evaluation in the social sciences and humanities

Cited by 28 publications

References 23 publications

Understanding and Evaluating Research and Scholarly Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)

Understanding and Evaluating Research and Scholarly Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)

The Norwegian Model in Norway

Redesigning the Model of Book Evaluation in the Polish Performance-based Research Funding System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About