Authors:Weina Hua, Shunbo Yuan, Miaomiao Yan and Yu Li
contribution we focus on research in the humanitiesandsocialsciences, such as political sciences, geography and economics.
Arctic research focusing on the humanitiesandsocialsciences covers many disciplines. In
Scientific achievements of humanitiesandsocialsciences in complicated forms cannot create economic and social value instantly as natural sciences. When evaluating these achievements, some rules can be operated
In this era of a rapid change in the way people finding and using information resources, despite that the academic communication
and using patterns for people in the traditional print environment have been studied for many years, the Internet media presents
a new and relatively unexplored area for such study. In this article, we explored the distribution and utilization of web
recourses in humanities and social sciences based on web citations. We collected 1,421,731 citations listed in 148,172 articles
from 493 journals published during the period of 2006–2007 in the CSSCI, which resulted in 44,973 web citations. We counted
the amount and types of web resources used in various disciplines, analyzed the URLs frequency from the host-level, fitted
the frequency distribution into the regression models with SPSS, and perform the disciplines coupling analysis based on the
web citations. We found out that: (a) The distributions of web citations by years or by websites and webpage types are selective
and regular; (b) Great disparity exists among various disciplines in terms of using web information, and the high-frequency
websites; (c) The frequency distribution of web citations is similar to the Garfield’s citation distribution curve; (d) Some
relationships between disciplines are detected, based on the utilization of web information.
An attempt is made to clarify the relationships among disciplines by examining the flow of citation and the migration of scholars in the humanities and social sciences in Japan. The results of both methods are consistent with each other. In humanities and social sciences in Japan, distinct hierarchical relationships are recognized between disciplines offering much information to other disciplines and disciplines obtaining much information from other disciplines.
In the current era, why is everybody talking about globalization? Will globalization bring us a happier life, or will it bring
us better opportunities to develop our production and academic research? The answer is both yes and no. For as far as scholars
of the humanities, or more specifically, comparatists are concerned, globalization is not necessarily a good thing. It has
raised severe challenges against our intellectual life and literary scholarship. Of course, some of us do welcome the advent
of globalization viewing it as a rare opportunity to develop East-West comparative literature and cultural studies. This is
perhaps one of the reasons why talking a lot about globalization has become an academic fashion within and without our discipline,
especially in China in recent years. But why are there so many people talking about globalization, especially those of the
humanities and social sciences? Because there is indeed a lot to say about this hot topic: economic globalization, financial
globalization, political globalization, cultural globalization and even mass media globalization, all of which are influencing
our mode of thinking and penetrating our academic life in varying degrees.
Authors:Chiang Kao, Hsiou-Wei Lin, San-Lin Chung, Wei-Chi Tsai, Jyh-Shen Chiou, Yen-Liang Chen, Liang-Hsuan Chen, Shih-Chieh Fang and Hwei-Lan Pao
To improve the quality of journals in Taiwan, the National Science Council (NSC) of the Republic of China evaluates journals
in the fields of humanities and social sciences periodically. This paper describes the evaluation of 46 management journals
conducted by the authors, as authorized by the NSC. Both a subjective approach, with judgments solicited from 345 experts,
and an objective approach, with data collected on four indicators: journal cross citation, dissertation citation, authors’
scholastic reputation, and author diversity, were used to make a comprehensive evaluation. Performance in the four indicators
were aggregated using weights which were most favourable to all journals, in a compromise sense, to produce the composite
indices. The subjective evaluation reflects the general image, or reputation, of journals while the objective evaluation discloses
blind spots which have been overlooked by experts. The results show that using either approach alone would have produced results
which are misleading, which suggests that both approaches should be used. All of the editors of the journals being evaluated
agreed that the evaluation was appropriate and the results are reasonable.
Authors:Tracy Eng, Don Kuiken, Krister Temme and Ruby Sharma
International, A (HumanitiesandSocialSciences) , 62 (7-A), US: University Microfilms International.
Post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and heavy alcohol use among Chinese Americans: The salience of trauma
a tool for evaluation of journals in the humanitiesandsocialsciences (Giménez-Toledo et al., 2007 ).
A significant number of countries have made attempts to create their own national citation index databases (Winclawska, 1996 ; Webster
HumanitiesandSocialScience Fund of Chinaʼs Ministry of Education. Data marked as Wu Yingzhe (2017b) or W17b or Index are from Chinggeltei, Wu Yingzhe and Jiruhe (2017): Qidan xiaozi zai yanjiu 丹小字再研究 [Further research on Khitan Small Script]. The paper