scholarly journals Journal lists in social sciences and the spectrum of quality standards

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raf Guns ◽  
Marek Hołowiecki
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Quality Standards ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Complex Spectrum ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
One Dimensional ◽  
International Visibility ◽  
Careful Scrutiny ◽  
The Social ◽  
Quality Dimensions

The social sciences involve multiple literatures, including journals with a more international and those with a more local orientation. Quality standards in research assessment have largely been borrowed from STEM fields and generally favour internationally oriented journals with high international visibility and scientific impact, to the detriment of other quality dimensions, such as relevance to local communities and researchers or openness of research.In journal lists, this complex spectrum of quality standards is simplified into a one-dimensional arrangement. We provide a typology to characterize journal lists and discuss the usage of journal lists in research assessment, arguing that their values and criteria deserve careful scrutiny and can be studied through systematic comparison.

scholarly journals Assessing Interdisciplinary Research in the Social Sciences: Are we on the right track?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Eykens
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Interdisciplinary Research ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Seven Principles ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Right

In this chapter we first discuss how interdisciplinarity is perceived in research policy making and in applied bibliometric research. We put forward a processual view on disciplines and interdisciplinarity in the social sciences which emphasizes the changing nature of disciplines and the heterogeneity of individual fields. This view challenges the current status quo in the development of bibliometric indicators as well as qualitative research assessment exercises. We propose a stance in which the focus is shifted to the changing dynamics of the social sciences in order to develop a better understanding of interdisciplinarity. We point out that the cognitive and socio-cultural diversity of disciplines makes it difficult to transfer current disciplinary peer review practices to the evaluation of interdisciplinarity. We reiterate seven principles proposed by Klein which might guide more appropriate evaluation practices suitable for the assessment of interdisciplinarity in the social sciences.

scholarly journals Quantitative science studies should be framed with middle-range theories and concepts from the social sciences

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 983-992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Heinze ◽  
Arlette Jappe
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Science Studies ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Sociology Of Professions ◽  
Middle Range ◽  
Advanced Economies ◽  
The Social ◽  
Andrew Abbott

This paper argues that quantitative science studies should frame their data and analyses with middle-range sociological theories and concepts. We illustrate this argument with reference to the “sociology of professions,” a middle-range theoretical framework developed by Chicago sociologist Andrew Abbott. Using this framework, we counter the claim that the use of bibliometric indicators in research assessment is pervasive in all advanced economies. Rather, our comparison between the Netherlands and Italy reveals major differences in the national design of bibliometric research assessment: The Netherlands follows a model of bibliometric professionalism, whereas Italy follows a centralized bureaucratic model that co-opts academic elites. We conclude that applying the sociology of professions framework to a broader set of countries would be worthwhile, allowing the emerging bibliometric profession to be charted in a comprehensive, and preferably quantitative, fashion. We also briefly discuss other sociological middle-range concepts that could potentially guide empirical analyses in quantitative science studies.

scholarly journals Breaking groupthink: Why scientific identity and norms mitigate ideological epistemology

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay Joseph Van Bavel ◽  
Diego A. Reinero ◽  
Elizabeth Ann Harris ◽  
Claire Robertson ◽  
Philip Pärnamets
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Rigorous Analysis ◽  
Ideological Bias ◽  
Empirical Basis ◽  
Careful Scrutiny ◽  
The Social ◽  
Growing Body ◽  
Scientific Claim ◽  
Scientific Identity

Can scientists be trusted to conduct unbiased science? There is a growing body of papers arguing that psychological research is guided by “ideological epistemology”. According to this account, people are innately tribal in their political dispositions and these allegiances inevitably produce groupthink and guide them away from the truth--leading to a body of flimsy or biased research. This is a serious claim and one that would likely have far-reaching implications for many fields in the social sciences, as well as branches of biology (e.g., genetics) and climatology. Yet, like any other scientific claim, it deserves careful scrutiny and rigorous analysis. In the current paper, we examine the theoretical and empirical basis for ideological epistemology in science, finding limited factual evidence for ideological bias in the published literature.

History as a laboratory to better understand the formation of institutions

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
BAS VAN BAVEL
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Institutional Change ◽  
Social History ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
One Dimensional ◽  
Long Run ◽  
The Social ◽  
Main Instrument

AbstractA main instrument for better understanding the formation of institutions, and explaining the differences in their long-run development between periods and societies, would be to use history as a laboratory, allowing us to test the hypotheses developed in the social sciences. This paper discusses the study by Douglas Allen,The Institutional Revolution, in that context, in order to identify some of the pitfalls in the current attempts by economists to use historical analysis. Next, the paper places his English case into a comparative perspective, helped by the recent insights gained by economic and social history, to see how these pitfalls can be avoided. Based on this, I argue for comparisons at the regional, national and global levels, and for a multidimensional view which includes social contextualization, combined with an open eye for discontinuity in long-run patterns, in order to avoid one-dimensional and teleological approaches to institutional change.

scholarly journals The use of bibliometrics in assessments of social scientists

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Sivertsen
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
H Index ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
The Social ◽  
Official Sources ◽  
Source Of Information ◽  
Journal Impact

The paper is focused on practical advice for the use of bibliometrics in research assessment in the social sciences. Guidelines are presented from three official sources of advice with a particular focus on individual-level assessments of applications for positions, promotions, and external funding. General problems with applying bibliometrics in evaluations of the social sciences are also discussed, as well as the specific problems with using the Journal Impact Factor and the H-Index. The conclusion is not that bibliometrics should be avoided in research assessment of social scientists. Used with care and competence, bibliometrics can be a valuable extra source of information, but not replace judgement in research evaluation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document