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

Abstract

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.

Journal article publishing in the social sciences and humanities: A comparison of Web of Science coverage for five European countries

“…From ca the 1980s, bibliometric methods became increasingly anchored in science policy and research evaluation. In this context, bibliometric research refocused from supporting sociological theories to research evaluation topics: science mapping, systemic effects of evaluation procedures, developing new indicators or studying publication patterns [ 1 ]. The common attribute of the recent era in bibliometric scholarship is using publication metadata as the primary data source.…”

“…The common attribute of the recent era in bibliometric scholarship is using publication metadata as the primary data source. Major international bibliographic database Web of Science (WoS) has been used in research dealing with publishing and citation characteristics and patterns changes in the social sciences and humanities (SSH), as summarized by Nederhof [ 2 ] and recently by Franssen and Wouters [ 1 ]. In 2006, Archambault et al [ 3 ] discussed the limits of WoS for any comparative analysis in terms of SSH output due to the language-related database bias.…”

“…In 2006, Archambault et al [ 3 ] discussed the limits of WoS for any comparative analysis in terms of SSH output due to the language-related database bias. As documented by Franssen and Wouters [ 1 ], the recent establishment of comprehensive national databases has opened a new direction of bibliometric studies of SSH allowing for a more complete picture of the publication practices by covering more publication types, sources, and research with local relevance than highly selective international databases WoS and Scopus do [ 4 ]. However, national databases are relatively new and limit the research by having a different scope and comprehensiveness.…”

The Sociology of Science and the Garfield Effect: Happy Accidents, Unanticipated Developments and Unexploited Potentials

“…"Commemoration and Celebration of the Life ofEugene Garfield, 1925-2017, " Philadelphia: September 15-16, 2017, sponsored by Clarivate Analytics. 2 I joined Gene Garfield on the Board of Annual Reviews Inc., the scientific publisher, in 1974.…”

“…Putting aside comparison with the sciences, I think more can be learned about citation practices of scholars in various disciplines in the humanities, as is demonstrated in the as yet unpublished and illuminating (to me) review of bibliometric 83 Cole et al (1978) report that when citations in two journals in Language and Literature are separated into those to materials on which scholars did their research (or "data citations, " for example to John Milton) from other or "influence" citations, the average age of citation in the humanities literature dropped considerably but did not reach the levels usually found in the sciences. or scientometrics research on the humanities by Franssen and Wouters (2017).…”