Highly cited articles in social sciences: an analytical study

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (10) ◽  
pp. 5-9
Author(s):  
Namita Mahapatra ◽  
Jyotshna Sahoo
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Case Study Research ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Qualitative Inquiry ◽  
Authorship Pattern ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Highly Cited Articles ◽  
Highly Cited

Purpose This paper aims at analyzing the distinctive characteristics of highly cited articles (HCAs) in the domain of Social Sciences with respect to chronological growth pattern, productive journals, authorship pattern, prolific authors, top institutions and leading countries, network among institutions and top ranked keywords in social science research. Design/methodology/approach The required data has been retrieved from Scopus indexing database and further refined using various limits like document types, subject coverage and total citations, and finally, 839 articles were selected for detail analysis. A set of bibliometric indicators were used to make a quantitative analysis, whereas VOSviewer software tool was used to visualize the institutional network and keywords mapping of the HCAs. Findings This study revealed that highest number of HCAs (371) were published during the decade 2001–2010. Degree of collaboration, collaborative index and collaborative coefficient were observed to be 0.513, 1.98 and 0.988, respectively. The highly cited papers were emanated from 397 journals, contributed by 1,556 authors from 1,326 institutions placed in 46 countries. Social Science and Medicine was the most productive journal; J. Urry of Lancaster University, UK, was the most influential author; the USA, the UK and Canada are the torchbearers in social science research. The paper entitled “Five misunderstandings about case-study research,” authored by B. Flyvbjerg, published in 2006 in Qualitative Inquiry, received highest 4,730 citations. Originality/value The primary value of this paper lies in extending an understanding of the characteristics of HCAs in the domain of social sciences. It will provide an insight to the researchers to get acquainted with the most influential authors, journals, institutions, countries and major thrust areas of research in social sciences.

scholarly journals Reporting ethical approval in health and social science articles: an audit of adherence to GDPR and national legislation

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjell Asplund ◽  
Kerstin Hulter Åsberg
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Ethical Approval

Abstract Background Previous studies have indicated that failure to report ethical approval is common in health science articles. In social sciences, the occurrence is unknown. The Swedish Ethics Review Act requests that sensitive personal data, in accordance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), should undergo independent ethical review, irrespective of academic discipline. We have explored the adherence to this regulation. Methods Using the Web of Science databases, we reviewed 600 consecutive articles from three domains (health sciences with and without somatic focus and social sciences) based on identifiable personal data published in 2020. Results Information on ethical review was lacking in 12 of 200 health science articles with somatic focus (6%), 21 of 200 health science articles with non-somatic focus (11%), and in 54 of 200 social science articles (27%; p < 0.001 vs. both groups of health science articles). Failure to report on ethical approval was more common in (a) observational than in interventional studies (p < 0.01), (b) articles with only 1–2 authors (p < 0.001) and (c) health science articles from universities without a medical school (p < 0.001). There was no significant association between journal impact factor and failure to report ethical approval. Conclusions We conclude that reporting of research ethics approval is reasonably good, but not strict, in health science articles. Failure to report ethical approval is about three times more frequent in social sciences compared to health sciences. Improved adherence seems needed particularly in observational studies, in articles with few authors and in social science research.

Navigeren in het onderzoeksveld en het onderzoekersveld: reflecties op onderzoekspositionaliteit in (vermeend) insideronderzoek

KWALON ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-51
Author(s):  
Jing Hiah
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Insider Research ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Shed Light

Abstract Navigating the research and researchers’ field: Reflections on positionality in (assumed) insider research To challenge rigid ideas about objectivity in social science research, qualitative researchers question their own subjectivity in the research process. In such endeavors, the focus is mainly on the positionality of the researcher vis-à-vis their respondents in the research field. In this contribution, I argue that the positionality of the researcher in academia, what I refer to as the researchers’ field, is equally important as it influences the way research findings are received and evaluated. Through reflections on positionality in my insider research concerning labour relations and exploitation in Chinese migrant businesses in the Netherlands and Romania, I explore how my positionality as an insider negatively influenced my credibility and approachability in the researchers’ field. I conclude that it is necessary to pay more attention to researchers’ positionality in academia as it may shed light on and make it possible to discuss the written and unwritten standards of researchers’ credibility and approachability as an academic in the researchers’ field. Accordingly, this could provide insights into the causes of inequalities in academia and contribute to the current challenge for more diversity in academia.

Statistical and measurement pitfalls in the use of meta-regression in meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 469-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank L. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Organizational Behavior ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Marketing Social ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Almost All

Purpose Meta-regression is widely used and misused today in meta-analyses in psychology, organizational behavior, marketing, management, and other social sciences, as an approach to the identification and calibration of moderators, with most users being unaware of serious problems in its use. The purpose of this paper is to describe nine serious methodological problems that plague applications of meta-regression. Design/methodology/approach This paper is methodological in nature and is based on well-established principles of measurement and statistics. These principles are used to illuminate the potential pitfalls in typical applications of meta-regression. Findings The analysis in this paper demonstrates that many of the nine statistical and measurement pitfalls in the use of meta-regression are nearly universal in applications in the literature, leading to the conclusion that few meta-regressions in the literature today are trustworthy. A second conclusion is that in almost all cases, hierarchical subgrouping of studies is superior to meta-regression as a method of identifying and calibrating moderators. Finally, a third conclusion is that, contrary to popular belief among researchers, the process of accurately identifying and calibrating moderators, even with the best available methods, is complex, difficult, and data demanding. Practical implications This paper provides useful guidance to meta-analytic researchers that will improve the practice of moderator identification and calibration in social science research literatures. Social implications Today, many important decisions are made on the basis of the results of meta-analyses. These include decisions in medicine, pharmacology, applied psychology, management, marketing, social policy, and other social sciences. The guidance provided in this paper will improve the quality of such decisions by improving the accuracy and trustworthiness of meta-analytic results. Originality/value This paper is original and valuable in that there is no similar listing and discussion of the pitfalls in the use of meta-regression in the literature, and there is currently a widespread lack of knowledge of these problems among meta-analytic researchers in all disciplines.

scholarly journals Social Sciences: Achievements and Prospects Journal 6 (14), 2019/ RELF Group & OEAPS Inc.(Open European Academy of Public Sciences); Chief Editor Mark Freeman - Barcelona, Spain. 16.09.2019: OEAPS Inc., 2019. - 110 P.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inc. OEAPS
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Chief Editor ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
New Developments ◽  
European Academy ◽  
Doctor Of Philosophy ◽  
Key Questions

Social Sciences: Achievements and Prospects is a major international forum for the analysis and debate of trends and approaches in social science research. The journal provides a space for innovative theoretical as well as empirical contributions to issues that transcend the framework of the traditional disciplines. Given its international orientation, contributions of a comparative or cross-cultural nature are particularly welcome. Social Sciences: Achievements and Prospects aims to contribute to overcoming fragmentation and over-specialization in current social-science research. Comprehensive and original contributions will tend to be of a tentative nature, trying out new avenues on terrains that are far from being well known. The journal welcomes trend reports on intellectually stimulating new developments to make them more widely known and to offer a space to assess their significance in answering key questions of scholarship in our time.Chief Editor Mark Freeman Doctor of Philosophy, Estonia.

Environment and Health Research in China: The State of the Field

2013 ◽  
Vol 214 ◽  
pp. 255-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Holdaway
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Collaboration ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Environment And Health ◽  
The Social ◽  
Recent Developments

AbstractIn the context of this symposium, this article reviews social science research in the emerging field of environment and health in China, with a particular focus on the impacts of pollution. It begins with a discussion of the particular nature of China's environment-related health problems, distinguishing the different challenges presented by diseases of poverty, affluence and transition. It then reviews recent developments in policy and civil society with regard to environment and health, and the extent to which work in the social sciences has advanced our knowledge of these and of state–society interactions. The article concludes with some reflections on the need for and challenges of interdisciplinary and international collaboration in this area.

Literature Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 158-162
Author(s):  
Mathieu Ouimet ◽  
Pierre-Olivier Bédard
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
The Social ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
Review Protocol

This chapter highlights literature review. Reviewing the published literature is one of the key activities of social science research, as a way to position one’s academic contribution, but also to get a bird’s eye view of what the relevant literature says on a given topic or research question. Many guides have been created to assist academic researchers and students in conducting a literature review, but there is no consensus on the most appropriate method to do so. One of the reasons for this lack of consensus is the plurality of epistemological attitudes that coexist in the social sciences. Before initiating a literature review, the researcher should start by clarifying the need for and the purpose of the review. Once this has been clarified, the actual review protocol, tools, and databases to be used will need to be determined to strike a balance between the scope of the study and the depth of the review.

scholarly journals Post Qualitative Inquiry in an Ontology of Immanence

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. St. Pierre
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Qualitative Inquiry ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Social Theories ◽  
History Of

Because post qualitative inquiry uses an ontology of immanence from poststructuralism as well as transcendental empiricism, it cannot be a social science research methodology with preexisting research methods and research practices a researcher can apply. In fact, it is methodology-free and so refuses the demands of “application.” Recommendations for those interested in post qualitative inquiry include putting methodology aside and, instead, reading widely across philosophy, social theories, and the history of science and social science to find concepts that reorient thinking. Post qualitative inquiry encourages concrete, practical experimentation and the creation of the not yet instead of the repetition of what is.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document