The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science--a comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005-9)

Ossenblok, Truyken L. B.; Engels, Tim; Sivertsen, Gunnar

doi:10.1093/reseval/rvs019

Cited by 98 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is not a new phenomenon; it has been a humanistic practice for two thousand years. Certainly, in our time, we see a gradual and stable increase in English language publishing in the humanities, but there are also large differences between the disciplines (van Leeuwen 2006;Ossenblok et al 2012), indicating that the bilingual situation will prevail in the humanities due to the societal obligations and wider audiences, as explained above. Furthermore, there is no evidence that book publishing is being replaced by journal publishing in the humanities.…”

Section: Discussion: the Norwegian Model From The Perspective Of Thementioning

confidence: 79%

“…There have been several studies already of the effects of the Norwegian model in different contexts in Denmark, Flanders, Norway and Sweden (Ahlgren et al 2012;Hammarfelt and de Rijcke 2014;Ossenblok et al 2012). In addition, there have been three evaluations commissioned by the Governments in Denmark, Flanders and Norway.…”

Section: Evaluations Of Effects and Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Publication-Based Funding: The Norwegian Model

Sivertsen

2016

Research Assessment in the Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 'Norwegian Model' attempts to comprehensively cover all the peerreviewed scholarly literatures in all areas of research-including the preferred formats and languages of scholarly publishing in the humanities-in one single weighted indicator which makes the research efforts comparable across departments and faculties within and between research institutions. This article describes the main components of the model and how it has been implemented, as well as the effects and experiences in three of the countries that are making use of the model, and where it has been evaluated: Belgium (Flanders), Denmark and Norway. The article concludes with a discussion of the model from the perspective of the humanities.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: the Norwegian Model From The Perspective Of Thementioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Evaluations Of Effects and Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication-Based Funding: The Norwegian Model

Sivertsen

2016

Research Assessment in the Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, none of the six publications cited to support this statement prove that it is true. I contributed to one of them myself (Ossenblok et al, 2012). It neither supports the statement or is concerned with this question.…”

Section: Indicator-based Funding: the Norwegian Modelmentioning

confidence: 90%

Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an international perspective

Sivertsen

2017

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inspired by The Metric Tide report (2015) on the role of metrics in research assessment and management, and Lord Nicholas Stern's report Building on Success and Learning from Experience (2016), which deals with criticisms of REF2014 and gives advice for a redesign of REF2021, this article discusses the possible implications for other countries. It also contributes to the discussion of the future of the REF by taking an international perspective. The article offers a framework for understanding differences in the motivations and designs of performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) across countries. It also shows that a basis for mutual learning among countries is more needed than a formulation of best practice, thereby both contributing to and correcting the international outlook in The Metric Tide report and its supplementary Literature Review.

show abstract

“…However, Hammarfelt (2016: 115) observes a shift from investigating coverage issues towards studying the characteristics of SSH publication practices and developing bibliometric approaches sensitive to the organization of SSH research fields. This includes, but is not limited to, extending bibliometric analyses to non-source items (Butler and Visser, 2006;Chi, 2014) or the relatively new Book Citation Index (Gorraiz et al, 2013), using other databases like Google Scholar (Kousha and Thelwall, 2009) or data from social media services, the so-called altmetrics (Holmberg and Thelwall, 2014;Mohammadi and Thelwall, 2014;Zuccala et al, 2015;Zuccala and Cornacchia, 2016), analysing the inclusion in library catalogues (White et al, 2009), exploring national databases with full coverage , extending data to references in research grant proposals (Hammarfelt, 2013) or to book reviews (Zuccala and van Leeuwen, 2011;Zuccala et al, 2015), exploring collaboration (Ossenblok and Engels, 2015) and publication patterns (Chi, 2012;Ossenblok et al, 2012;Verleysen and Weeren, 2016). From a more pragmatic point of view, attempts are made to "weigh" the various outputs, such as journals or books in the SSH, similar to the journal impact factor, commonly used in the sciences (Giménez-Toledo, 2016).…”

Section: Improving the Databasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research assessment in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) is delicate. Assessment procedures meet strong criticisms from SSH scholars and bibliometric research shows that the methods that are usually applied are ill-adapted to SSH research. While until recently research on assessment in the SSH disciplines focused on the deficiencies of the current assessment methods, we present some European initiatives that take a bottom-up approach. They focus on research practices in SSH and reflect on how to assess SSH research with its own approaches instead of applying and adjusting the methods developed for and in the natural and life sciences. This is an important development because we can learn from previous evaluation exercises that whenever scholars felt that assessment procedures were imposed in a top-down manner without proper adjustments to SSH research, it resulted in boycotts or resistance. Applying adequate evaluation methods not only helps foster a better valorization of SSH research within the research community, among policymakers and colleagues from the natural sciences, but it will also help society to better understand SSH's contributions to solving major societal challenges. Therefore, taking the time to encourage bottom-up evaluation initiatives should result in being able to better confront the main challenges facing modern society. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.

show abstract

The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science--a comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005-9)

Cited by 98 publications

References 14 publications

Publication-Based Funding: The Norwegian Model

Publication-Based Funding: The Norwegian Model

Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an international perspective

The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About