Authors:Tim C. E. Engels, Truyken L. B. Ossenblok, and Eric H. J. Spruyt
Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) publications in the WoS remains limited (Adams and Testa 2011 ; Archambault et al. 2006 ), the logic approach for the Flemish government was to instruct an independent body to map the SSH publications that are not
The article starts from the specific difficulties of applying quantitative analysis to the humanities and the general resistance to such analysis in the Federal Republic of Germany. It gives a survey of the attempts to apply bibliometric methods in English Studies, the only subject investigated so far. The highly individual nature of research in the humanities is stressed and differences in subfields are illustrated. There is little influence of departmental size or age on the publication behaviour of individuals. More studies of citation behaviour are needed for a reliable evaluation of the impact of research in the humanities.
Introduction and background
A well-designed and comprehensive citation index for the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) has many potential uses, but has yet to be realised. A recent initiative in this direction is the so
This study explored the main factors influencing the research production in the arts and humanities. A questionnaire was constructed to identify and assess the effects of various factors important for the productivity of the individual researcher as reflected in the number of papers and Ph.D.'s produced. First, respondents were given the opportunity to list in their own words a number of important factors influencing research productivity. Secondly, they evaluated on rating scales the importance of a number of pre-selected factors (e.g. individual characteristics, organisational features, external factors) assumed to be important for research productivity. 50% of a sample of 256 researchers in the humanities responded. Ratings were grouped to produce a number of indices and these were subject to multiple regression analyses. The main results showed that the production of papers was predicted by the number of Ph.D.'s produced and inversely related to the importance of organisational factors. The production of Ph.D.'s was dependent on the year of the Ph.D. and the position of the respondent as well as on the number of papers s/he produced. A number of conclusions were drawn: a) there was support for the academic social position effect also in the humanities; b) organisational factors apparently played a minor role in comparison to individual characteristics in the humanities than in the sciences and; c) the differences in productivity of papers were also related to gender, but not to size, area or language of publications. Implications for further studies were suggested.
In this paper specifics of the research subject within the natural sciences and humanities are supposed to be well-known.
These specifics set limits to communication between scholars and natural scientists. In particular this leads to critical
situations in cases if both participants have to collaborate within a common interdisciplinary research work. The modern conception
of complex system as subject of investigation for both natural sciences and humanities have in this context an integrating
function. The term ‘complex system’ is now recognized as a transdisciplinary matter of research. Despite of the well-known
differences between two fields of modern science one can find on this condition a number of mechanisms which are generating
also common properties of them.
Authors:Weina Hua, Shunbo Yuan, Miaomiao Yan, and Yu Li
contribution we focus on research in the humanities and social sciences, such as political sciences, geography and economics.
Arctic research focusing on the humanities and social sciences covers many disciplines. In
Authors:Lidiya Kavunenko, Vladimir Khorevin, and Katerina Luzan
This article analyses the changes in development of journals on social sciences and humanities in Ukraine and shows the results
of the comparative analysis of journals on social sciences and humanities in Ukraine, and journals in the world included in
relevant databases of the US Institute for Scientific Information (Philadelphia).
This paper addresses research performance monitoring of the social sciences and the humanities using citation analysis. Main
differences in publication and citation behavior between the (basic) sciences and the social sciences and humanities are outlined.
Limitations of the (S)SCI and A&HCI for monitoring research performance are considered. For research performance monitoring
in many social sciences and humanities, the methods used in science need to be extended. A broader range of both publications
(including non-ISI journals and monographs) and citation indicators (including non-ISI reference citation values) is needed.
Three options for bibliometric monitoring are discussed.
Titles constitute the most concise statement of a document's content, and are heavily used by information retrieval systems.
Consequently, the great importance of titles being highly informative is indisputable. The most common measure of title ‘informativity’
has been the number of ‘substantive’ words it includes. Previous studies found significant differences between journals of
different subject fields, in the sciences and the social sciences, regarding the number of substantive words in article titles.
However, unlike the sciences and the social sciences, very little research has been done onhumanities journals. Examining title informativity in a group of eighteen leading English-language journals, covering various humanities
disciplines, from 1940 to 1990, the present study searched for possible differences between the humanities journal and the
scientific and social sciences ones, concerning patterns of title informativity. Generally, considerable differences were
found in the number of substantive words in article titles between the various humanities journals checked. On the other hand,
a comparison of thegroup-average means and medians of the humanities journals to group figures of journals from the sciences and the social sciences indicates
significant differences for almost all decade years studied. However, titles of papers in humanities journals did follow the
general trend of increase in informativity, although in a slower pace. Possible explanations of these differences are discussed
and areas for further study are suggested.