scholarly journals Towards proper evaluation of book publishing in the social sciences

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Sivertsen ◽  
Elea Giménez-Toledo ◽  
Nataša Jermen

Books are important in the social sciences. Monographs and edited books allow for presenting original research based on methodologies or forms of collaboration that the format of the journal article does not serve as appropriately. Books are also used to engage directly with society. This chapter first introduces book publishing in the social sciences as a diversity of genres, purposes, and audiences. We then limit the scope to peer-reviewed scholarly book publishing and describe how publication patterns differ among the disciplines of the social sciences in the dimensions of books versus journal articles and national versus international publishing. Then we focus on the structure of the scholarly book publishing market with particular attention to developments towards open access publishing. The chapter ends with our suggestions for principles that can guide proper evaluation of book publishing in the social sciences.

2018 ◽  
Vol 70 (6) ◽  
pp. 592-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim C.E. Engels ◽  
Andreja Istenič Starčič ◽  
Emanuel Kulczycki ◽  
Janne Pölönen ◽  
Gunnar Sivertsen

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like “performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing” are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH. Originality/value The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
William E. Savage ◽  
Anthony J. Olejniczak

Over the past few years, the rate of journal article publication has increased in most academic disciplines - in some cases more than doubling in the past decade. While journal articles are the de facto currency of knowledge production in many science disciplines, social science scholars routinely publish books as well as journal articles. The social sciences have also undergone a rapid transformation towards more quantitative methodologies, thus representing a unique opportunity to study the increased rate of journal article publication in an area where books are also an important mode of dissemination. We studied the publishing activity of social sciences faculty members in 12 disciplines at 290 Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States between 2011 and 2019. In all disciplines, journal articles per person increased between 2011 and 2019 by between 3% and 64%, while books per person decreased by at least 31% and as much as 54%. Overall, early career researchers show the largest increase in rates of journal article production, while senior scholars show the greatest increase in participation in journal article production. Younger scholars appear to have greater publication output, while growing numbers of older scholars turn towards journal articles as a means of disseminating their work in the social sciences. We observe growing uniformity in the disciplinary literatures of the social sciences, which increasingly resemble the physical and biological sciences in terms of publication practices.


2004 ◽  
Vol 65 (6) ◽  
pp. 505-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen E. Wiberley

The study of prizes awarded to books in the 1990s by leading social sciences scholarly associations helps us understand the disciplines, publishing, and libraries during that decade. This article examines data on prizewinners of the American Anthropological Association, the American Educational Research Association, the Association of American Geographers, the American Political Science Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Sociological Association. For the prizewinners, it reports the distribution of winners among publishers and universities; the extent of cross-disciplinary publishing; the degree of coauthorship; trends in library acquisitions of print versions; and accessibility of electronic versions. The University of Chicago Press ranked first among publishers, and the faculty at Harvard won more prizes than did faculty at any other institution. Library of Congress and Dewey Decimal classifications assigned to the winners show substantial cross-disciplinary interest. Sixteen percent of the books were coauthored. Library print holdings appeared to decline over the decade by approximately 20 percent; and in April 2004, 19 percent of prizewinners were available electronically.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0242509
Author(s):  
Balázs Bodó ◽  
Dániel Antal ◽  
Zoltán Puha

Library Genesis is one of the oldest and largest illegal scholarly book collections online. Without the authorization of copyright holders, this shadow library hosts and makes more than 2 million scholarly publications, monographs, and textbooks available. This paper analyzes a set of weblogs of one of the Library Genesis mirrors, provided to us by one of the service’s administrators. We reconstruct the social and economic factors that drive the global and European demand for illicit scholarly literature. In particular, we test if lower income regions can compensate for the shortcomings in legal access infrastructures by more intensive use of illicit open resources. We found that while richer regions are the most intensive users of shadow libraries, poorer regions face structural limitations that prevent them from fully capitalizing on freely accessible knowledge. We discuss these findings in the wider context of open access publishing, and point out that open access knowledge, if not met with proper knowledge absorption infrastructures, has limited usefulness in addressing knowledge access and production inequalities.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renata Hryciuk ◽  
Katarzyna E. Król

This special issue of Ethnologia Polona comprises contributions from an international group of scholars who scrutinize the culturally embedded politics of food and foodways in Poland and beyond. The idea for the special issue “The Cultural Politics of Food and Eating in Poland and Beyond” stemmed from discussions and collaborations with academics working in the area of food studies, and with those who use food as a lens to look at different social, cultural and political phenomena. Both groups share a commitment to a critical perspective in the social sciences and humanities, and a need to strengthen this position within international academia.  We developed this special issue around the cultural politics of food and eating in order to highlight the importance of a critical perspective while studying food-related issues. Our aim is to demonstrate both the thematic scope and the theoretical directions present in the contemporary studies produced by scholars working on Poland, as well as Polish researchers working on other regions. The territorial scope of the volume is wide as it features analyses based on abundant ethnographic and historical material from Poland, Belgium, Georgia, Ukraine, Dagestan and Argentina. The volume features contributions from scholars representing different disciplines (anthropology, sociology, social history and cultural studies) based on original research (extended ethnographic fieldwork, archival research and autoethnography) and presenting a clear methodological reflection.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenfa Ng

Besides offering fun activities for non-scientists to explore the natural world through experiments, simulations or games, the evolving concept of citizen science is increasingly allowing some serious publication quality science to be published by the practitioners (citizen scientists) themselves. The latter is in contrast to the common perception of citizen science, where most citizen science projects such as Foldit are distribution of piecemeal segments of complex projects suitable for solution by individuals, and where the results are pooled together, or used to inform the design and direction of more complex research initiatives. Usually novices in science publishing but nonetheless aware of the importance of journal articles as the primary medium for communicating new research to the wider community (scientific and general public), citizen scientists do encounter significant challenges in science publication. One challenge is in navigating the lengthy and time-consuming peer review process of most journals. But, as benefactors of open access publishing where most journal articles are within pay walls inaccessible to citizen scientists without any research funding, open access publishing is one platform sought after or exist as an option for citizen scientists. Is the option open? Yes, at the preprint level where figshare, and PeerJ Preprints help provide an avenue for citizen scientists to have a published non peer reviewed article online, but no at the higher end “journal article” level where the manuscript needs to be peer reviewed. Even the biological sciences preprint server, bioRxiv, is closed to citizen scientists as publication on the server requires an institution affiliation with either a university or research institute. Most open access publishers (except eLife) charge a publication fee (in the thousands of dollars per article) to defray the cost of maintaining an online presence for a peer reviewed manuscript as well as those for copyediting during final stages of journal publication. This is a significant barrier to cost constrained citizen scientists who want to contribute to the scientific discourse. For the scientific enterprise, this represent a loss, whose magnitude or severity cannot be quantified since ideas help seed new research or entirely new fields. Thus, can we as a community provide citizen scientists worldwide a chance to publish open access peer reviewed articles without significant cost through a competitive publication fee subsidy scheme where each application is reviewed by the national science funding agency? If the above is possible, it would open up another area where ideas from citizen scientists could percolate into the scientific mainstream, where, as always, vibrancy and diversity of ideas power science forward.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 1638-1652
Author(s):  
Mike Thelwall

Researchers may be tempted to attract attention through poetic titles for their publications, but would this be mistaken in some fields? Although poetic titles are known to be common in medicine, it is not clear whether the practice is widespread elsewhere. This article investigates the prevalence of poetic expressions in journal article titles from 1996–2019 in 3.3 million articles from all 27 Scopus broad fields. Expressions were identified by manually checking all phrases with at least five words that occurred at least 25 times, finding 149 stock phrases, idioms, sayings, literary allusions, film names, and song titles or lyrics. The expressions found are most common in the social sciences and the humanities. They are also relatively common in medicine, but almost absent from engineering and the natural and formal sciences. The differences may reflect the less hierarchical and more varied nature of the social sciences and humanities, where interesting titles may attract an audience. In engineering, natural science, and formal science fields, authors should take extra care with poetic expressions in case their choice is judged inappropriate. This includes interdisciplinary research overlapping these areas. Conversely, reviewers of interdisciplinary research involving the social sciences should be more tolerant of poetic license.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederik T. Verleysen ◽  
Arie Weeren

AbstractPurposeTo present a method for systematically mapping diversity of publication patterns at the author level in the social sciences and humanities in terms of publication type, publication language and co-authorship.Design/methodology/approachIn a follow-up to the hard partitioning clustering by Verleysen and Weeren in 2016, we now propose the complementary use of fuzzy cluster analysis, making use of a membership coefficient to study gradual differences between publication styles among authors within a scholarly discipline. The analysis of the probability density function of the membership coefficient allows to assess the distribution of publication styles within and between disciplines.FindingsAs an illustration we analyze 1,828 productive authors affiliated in Flanders, Belgium. Whereas a hard partitioning previously identified two broad publication styles, an international one vs. a domestic one, fuzzy analysis now shows gradual differences among authors. Internal diversity also varies across disciplines and can be explained by researchers’ specialization and dissemination strategies.Research limitationsThe dataset used is limited to one country for the years 2000–2011; a cognitive classification of authors may yield a different result from the affiliation-based classification used here.Practical implicationsOur method is applicable to other bibliometric and research evaluation contexts, especially for the social sciences and humanities in non-Anglophone countries.Originality/valueThe method proposed is a novel application of cluster analysis to the field of bibliometrics. Applied to publication patterns at the author level in the social sciences and humanities, for the first time it systematically documents intra-disciplinary diversity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document