scholarly journals Uncited papers are not useless

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Michael Golosovsky ◽  
Vincent Larivière
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Poisson Process ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Poisson Statistics ◽  
Inhomogeneous Poisson Process ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
And Mathematics

Abstract We study citation dynamics of the papers published in three scientific disciplines (Physics, Economics, and Mathematics) and four broad scientific categories (Medical, Natural, Social Sciences, and Arts & Humanities). We measure the uncitedness ratio, namely, the fraction of uncited papers in these datasets and its dependence on the time following publication. These measurements are compared with the model of citation dynamics which considers acquiring citations as an inhomogeneous Poisson process. The model captures the fraction of uncited papers in our collections fairly well, suggesting that uncitedness is an inevitable consequence of the Poisson statistics. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00142

Reflections into the Spirit of the Islamic Corpus of Knowledge and the Rise of the New Science

1993 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-164
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Dhaouadi
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Third World ◽  
New Physics ◽  
Western Civilization ◽  
Western Science ◽  
New Science ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
The World ◽  
The Future ◽  
Primary Reference

There is no question that contemporary western civilization has beendominant in the field of science since the Renaissance. Western scientificsuperiority is not limited to specific scientific disciplines, but is rather anovetall scientific domination covering both the so-called exact and thehuman-social sciences. Western science is the primary reference for specialistsin such ateas as physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, economics,psychology, and sociology. It is in this sense that Third World underdevelopmentis not only economic, social, and industrial; it also suffersfrom scientific-cultutal underdevelopment, or what we call "The OtherUnderdevelopment" (Dhaouadi 1988).The imptessive progress of western science since Newton and Descartesdoes not meari, however, that it has everything tight or perfect. Infact, its flaws ate becoming mote visible. In the last few decades, westernscience has begun to experience a shift from what is called classical scienceto new science. Classical science was associated with the celestialmechanics of Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, the new physics of Galileo,and the philosophy of Descartes. Descartes introduced a radical divisionbetween mind and matter, while Newton and his fellows presented a newscience that looked at the world as a kind of giant clock The laws of thisworld were time-reversible, for it was held that there was no differencebetween past and future. As the laws were deterministic, both the pastand the future could be predicted once the present was known.The vision of the emerging new science tends to heal the division betweenmatter and spirit and to do away with the mechanical dimension ...

scholarly journals Bringing the doctoral thesis by published papers to the Social Sciences and the Humanities: a quantitative easing?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Rigby ◽  
Barbara Jones
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Higher Education ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
Education Sector ◽  
Academic Field ◽  
Doctoral Thesis ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Uk

This paper reflects on alternatives to the traditional form of doctoral thesis which are emerging to reflect a new approach to the valuation and designation of scientific outputs. We examine the changes and consider some implications. We suggest that the adoption of co-citation as underpinning principle for the measurement of knowledge structures has led to re-designation of the value of knowledge and knowledge producers in increasingly quantitative terms. We use notions of ‘institution’ and ‘logic’ to better understand such a change and its implications. Under a new logic that is gradually embedding itself across the higher education sector, the ‘constitutive rules’ concerned with the value of research now prioritize quantification, and tangibility of output, and quality is increasingly equated with citation. Whilst the scientific disciplines have traditionally been closer to this model, albeit with significant national variations, subjects within the Social Sciences and Humanities are now being affected. We present evidence from a small study of the UK higher education sector of university regulation of doctoral degree submission format in two disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences (History and Sociology). Our evidence shows the recent and gradual adoption of a practice, previously more common in scientific disciplines, that allows the doctoral thesis to be constituted by a series of publishable papers, known by a variety of names, the most common being ‘Thesis by Published Papers’, ‘Journal Format Thesis’, ‘Alternative Format Thesis’, and ‘Integrated Thesis’. As the thesis of the Social Sciences and Humanities – itself an important institution in the academic field - begins to reflect a greater emphasis upon quantity of knowledge outputs, a tension emerges with the most central of all scientific institutions, the peer-reviewed journal paper.

scholarly journals Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Veli-Matti Karhulahti ◽  
Hans-Joachim Backe
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Institutional Policies ◽  
Manuscript Review ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities

Abstract Background Open peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities (SSH) they are still rare. We aimed to map out how editors of respected SSH journals perceive open peer review, how they balance policy, ethics, and pragmatism in the review processes they oversee, and how they view their own power in the process. Methods We conducted 12 pre-registered semi-structured interviews with editors of respected SSH journals. Interviews consisted of 21 questions and lasted an average of 67 min. Interviews were transcribed, descriptively coded, and organized into code families. Results SSH editors saw anonymized peer review benefits to outweigh those of open peer review. They considered anonymized peer review the “gold standard” that authors and editors are expected to follow to respect institutional policies; moreover, anonymized review was also perceived as ethically superior due to the protection it provides, and more pragmatic due to eased seeking of reviewers. Finally, editors acknowledged their power in the publication process and reported strategies for keeping their work as unbiased as possible. Conclusions Editors of SSH journals preferred the benefits of anonymized peer review over open peer and acknowledged the power they hold in the publication process during which authors are almost completely disclosed to editorial bodies. We recommend journals to communicate the transparency elements of their manuscript review processes by listing all bodies who contributed to the decision on every review stage.

scholarly journals Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?

Publications ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Knöchelmann
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Communication Practices ◽  
Do So

Open science refers to both the practices and norms of more open and transparent communication and research in scientific disciplines and the discourse on these practices and norms. There is no such discourse dedicated to the humanities. Though the humanities appear to be less coherent as a cluster of scholarship than the sciences are, they do share unique characteristics which lead to distinct scholarly communication and research practices. A discourse on making these practices more open and transparent needs to take account of these characteristics. The prevalent scientific perspective in the discourse on more open practices does not do so, which confirms that the discourse’s name, open science, indeed excludes the humanities so that talking about open science in the humanities is incoherent. In this paper, I argue that there needs to be a dedicated discourse for more open research and communication practices in the humanities, one that integrates several elements currently fragmented into smaller, unconnected discourses (such as on open access, preprints, or peer review). I discuss three essential elements of open science—preprints, open peer review practices, and liberal open licences—in the realm of the humanities to demonstrate why a dedicated open humanities discourse is required.

Fuzzy Set Theory Applied to Accounting Sciences

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (01) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Carmen Lozano ◽  
Enriqueta Mancilla-Rendón
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Fuzzy Logic ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Fuzzy Set ◽  
Fuzzy Set Theory ◽  
Hamming Distance ◽  
Great Acceptance ◽  
Classical Mathematics ◽  
Triangular Numbers ◽  
And Mathematics

Fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic have been successfully developed in engineering and mathematics. However, these concepts have found great acceptance in social sciences in recent years since they provide an answer to those problems in the real world that cannot be modeled using classical mathematics. In this paper, we propose a new methodology for accounting science based on fuzzy triangular numbers. The methodology uses Hamming distance between fuzzy triangular numbers and arithmetic operations to evaluate corporate governance of multinational public stock corporations (PSCs) in the telecommunications sector.

HASS PhD graduate careers and knowledge transfer: A conduit for enduring, multi-sector networks

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 397-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn Barnacle ◽  
Denise Cuthbert ◽  
Christine Schmidt ◽  
Craig Batty
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Knowledge Transfer ◽  
Return On Investment ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
User Engagement ◽  
End User ◽  
Professional Networks ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
And Mathematics

Rising worldwide scrutiny of the PhD has focused on issues such as return on investment and career outcomes. This article investigates PhD graduate careers and knowledge transfer looking at the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (HASS). Firstly, our extensive literature review of PhD graduate outcomes reveals limited knowledge of HASS careers and a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) bias. Secondly, our case study of graduates suggests HASS PhDs provide a vital conduit for end-user engagement and knowledge transfer. Our findings deepen knowledge about the careers of HASS PhDs by revealing pre-existing professional networks may be harnessed to inform end-user relationships throughout candidature and post-graduation. Contrary to dominant assumptions, these networks may endure even for graduates in the academy. This under-recognized phenomenon demonstrates the multi-sector knowledge transfer capacity of HASS researchers with implications for their research capability and career development needs and perceptions of the value of their research.

scholarly journals Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science

2020 ◽  
Vol 125 (2) ◽  
pp. 1033-1051
Author(s):  
Dietmar Wolfram ◽  
Peiling Wang ◽  
Adam Hembree ◽  
Hyoungjoo Park
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Turn Of The Century ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Early Adopters ◽  
Steady Growth ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Science Movement ◽  
Different Levels

AbstractOpen peer review (OPR), where review reports and reviewers’ identities are published alongside the articles, represents one of the last aspects of the open science movement to be widely embraced, although its adoption has been growing since the turn of the century. This study provides the first comprehensive investigation of OPR adoption, its early adopters and the implementation approaches used. Current bibliographic databases do not systematically index OPR journals, nor do the OPR journals clearly state their policies on open identities and open reports. Using various methods, we identified 617 OPR journals that published at least one article with open identities or open reports as of 2019 and analyzed their wide-ranging implementations to derive emerging OPR practices. The findings suggest that: (1) there has been a steady growth in OPR adoption since 2001, when 38 journals initially adopted OPR, with more rapid growth since 2017; (2) OPR adoption is most prevalent in medical and scientific disciplines (79.9%); (3) five publishers are responsible for 81% of the identified OPR journals; (4) early adopter publishers have implemented OPR in different ways, resulting in different levels of transparency. Across the variations in OPR implementations, two important factors define the degree of transparency: open identities and open reports. Open identities may include reviewer names and affiliation as well as credentials; open reports may include timestamped review histories consisting of referee reports and author rebuttals or a letter from the editor integrating reviewers’ comments. When and where open reports can be accessed are also important factors indicating the OPR transparency level. Publishers of optional OPR journals should add metric data in their annual status reports.

scholarly journals Varieties of (Scientific) Creativity: A Hierarchical Model of Domain-Specific Disposition, Development, and Achievement

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 441-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean Keith Simonton
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Hierarchical Model ◽  
Family Background ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Normal Science ◽  
Scientific Creativity ◽  
Developmental Experiences ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Specific Impact

Prior research supports the inference that scientific disciplines can be ordered into a hierarchy ranging from the “hard” natural sciences to the “soft” social sciences. This ordering corresponds with such objective criteria as disciplinary consensus, knowledge obsolescence rate, anticipation frequency, theories-to-laws ratio, lecture disfluency, and age at recognition. It is then argued that this hierarchy can be extrapolated to encompass the humanities and arts and interpolated within specific domains to accommodate contrasts in subdomains (e.g., revolutionary versus normal science). This expanded and more finely differentiated hierarchy is then shown to have a partial psychological basis in terms of dispositional traits (e.g., psychopathology) and developmental experiences (e.g., family background). This demonstration then leads to three hypotheses about how a creator's domain-specific impact depends on his or her disposition and development: the domain-progressive, domain-typical, and domain-regressive creator hypotheses. Studies published thus far lend the most support to the domain-regressive creator hypothesis. In particular, major contributors to a domain are more likely to have dispositional traits and developmental experiences most similar to those that prevail in a domain lower in the disciplinary hierarchy. However, some complications to this generalization suggest the need for more research on the proposed hierarchical model.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document