scholarly journals Dialnet Métricas como herramienta de evaluación bibliométrica: aportes al análisis de la actividad científica en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orlando Gregorio-Chaviano ◽  
Rafael Repiso ◽  
Antonio Calderón-Rehecho ◽  
Joaquín León-Marín ◽  
Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
The Social ◽  
Wide Debate ◽  
Eugene Garfield ◽  
Spanish Universities ◽  
The Impact

Within the current panorama of science evaluation, the limitations of citation indexes to study the social sciences and humanities have been the subject of wide debate. To resolve this situation, different products have been created for use in national contexts, since they cover certain aspects not contained in more international indices. An example is the In-RECS family, where an indicator such as the impact factor of Eugene Garfield is defined, but its contribution lies in the ability to evaluate research in Spain by obtaining citation indicators. This paper thus highlights the need to create new products for research evaluation in general, but particularly in the social sciences and humanities. The context in which different alternatives arise and are developed to evaluate existing journals is presented, along with Dialnet Metrics, a citation index developed by the Dialnet Foundation in collaboration with the EC3 Group and dozens of Spanish universities. Based on an analysis of the citations of source journals from different subject areas, Dialnet Metrics provides indicators to evaluate the research impact at different levels. This bibliometric product enables contextualized analysis at the micro (researchers), meso (journals), and macro (areas and universities) levels. Finally, the content, data volumes, and structure of this citation index are described quantitatively. Resumen Dentro del panorama actual de evaluación de la ciencia, las limitaciones de los índices de citación para estudiar las Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades han sido motivo de amplio debate. Para resolver esta situación, se han creado distintos productos para ser usados en contextos nacionales, dado que cubren ciertos aspectos no presentes en los índices de carácter más internacional. Como ejemplo se encuentran los de la familia In-RECS, donde se define un indicador similar al factor de impacto de Eugene Garfield, pero su aporte radica en la capacidad de evaluar la investigación en España mediante la obtención de indicadores de citas. Es por ello por lo que en este trabajo se expone la necesidad de crear nuevos productos para la evaluación de la investigación en general, pero particularizando en las Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades. Se muestra el contexto en el que surgen y se desarrollan las distintas alternativas de evaluación de revistas existentes y se presenta Dialnet Métricas. Este es un índice de citación realizado por la Fundación Dialnet en colaboración con el Grupo EC3 y decenas de universidades españolas. A partir del análisis de las referencias citadas de revistas fuente de distintos campos temáticos, Dialnet Métricas proporciona indicadores para evaluar el impacto de la investigación a varios niveles. Este producto bibliométrico posibilita el análisis contextualizado a nivel micro (investigadores), meso (revistas) y macro (áreas y universidades). Por último, se describen cuantitativamente los contenidos, volúmenes de datos y estructura de este índice de citas. Palabras clave

Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities—A literature review

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Budtz Pedersen ◽  
Jonas Følsgaard Grønvad ◽  
Rolf Hvidtfeldt
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Methodological Pluralism ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Impact

Abstract This article explores the current literature on ‘research impact’ in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). By providing a comprehensive review of available literature, drawing on national and international experiences, we take a systematic look at the impact agenda within SSH. The primary objective of this article is to examine key methodological components used to assess research impact comparing the advantages and disadvantages of each method. The study finds that research impact is a highly complex and contested concept in the SSH literature. Drawing on the strong methodological pluralism emerging in the literature, we conclude that there is considerable room for researchers, universities, and funding agencies to establish impact assessment tools directed towards specific missions while avoiding catch-all indicators and universal metrics.

scholarly journals We Need to Talk about Impact: Why Social Policy Academics need to Engage with the UK's Research Impact Agenda

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
KATHERINE E. SMITH ◽  
ELLEN STEWART
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Policy Response ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Policy Relevance ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Way

AbstractOf all the social sciences, social policy is one of the most obviously policy-orientated. One might, therefore, expect a research and funding agenda which prioritises and rewards policy relevance to garner an enthusiastic response among social policy scholars. Yet, the social policy response to the way in which major funders and the Research Excellence Framework (REF) are now prioritising ‘impact’ has been remarkably muted. Elsewhere in the social sciences, ‘research impact’ is being widely debated and a wealth of concerns about the way in which this agenda is being pursued are being articulated. Here, we argue there is an urgent need for social policy academics to join this debate. First, we employ interviews with academics involved in health inequalities research, undertaken between 2004 and 2015, to explore perceptions, and experiences, of the ‘impact agenda’ (an analysis which is informed by a review of guidelines for assessing ‘impact’ and relevant academic literature). Next, we analyse high- and low-scoring REF2014 impact case studies to assess whether these concerns appear justified. We conclude by outlining how social policy expertise might usefully contribute to efforts to encourage, measure and reward research ‘impact’.

scholarly journals Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities?

2018 ◽  
Vol 70 (6) ◽  
pp. 592-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim C.E. Engels ◽  
Andreja Istenič Starčič ◽  
Emanuel Kulczycki ◽  
Janne Pölönen ◽  
Gunnar Sivertsen
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Book Publishing ◽  
Scholarly Book ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
The Social ◽  
Comprehensive Coverage

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.

Quantifying the research impact of the Sustainable Forest Management Network in the social sciences: a bibliometric study

2010 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 2248-2255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole L. Klenk ◽  
Anna Dabros ◽  
Gordon M. Hickey
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Forest Management ◽  
Sustainable Forest Management ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Funded Research ◽  
Principal Investigators ◽  
The Social ◽  
Research Standards ◽  
The Impact

This research note presents the results of a bibliometric analysis that was conducted to better understand the impact that Sustainable Forest Management Network (SFMN) funded research had in the forest-related social and Aboriginal research communities. We applied two indicators of research impact: (i) research outputs and (ii) citations. Our results suggest that the SFMN’s research outputs were highest in the fields of economics, sociology, and political science and law. The number of research articles that acknowledged the SFMN was 30% of the total research output of the SFMN-funded Principal Investigators. These articles represented 3% of the social science articles published in the Forestry Chronicle (the journal most frequently used by SFMN-funded Principal Investigators). Research output related to Aboriginal forestry indicated that the SFMN had a significant influence on the development of the field. Our citation analysis indicated that the average number of citations per SFMN-acknowledged publication in the social sciences was approximately the same as the international impact standard in the field. These results suggest that the SFMN-funded research in the social sciences compared very well with the international research standards in forest-related social sciences.

scholarly journals Exploração colaborativa através do compartilhamento de dados de citações do Google Scholar │ Collaborative exploration on citation data sharing in Google Scholar

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiago Rodrigo Marçal Murakami ◽  
Sibele Fausto ◽  
Ronaldo Ferreira de Araújo
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Scientific Collaboration ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
The Social ◽  
Collaborative Exploration ◽  
The Impact

RESUMO A falta de indexação dos títulos de revistas científicas de Ciências Humanas e Sociais em bases de dados comerciais restringe a investigação sobre seu impacto. O Acesso Aberto, ferramentas como o Google Scholar (GS) e aplicativos de processamento de dados permitem a busca e a recuperação de citações de artigos, sinalizando uma alternativa para os estudos sobre o impacto da produção científica publicada nessas áreas. Este estudo apresenta um projeto piloto de compartilhamento de dados de citações de periódicos para a investigação colaborativa por parte da comunidade de cientometria brasileira com o objetivo de incentivar uma maior utilização do GS para fins bibliométricos.Palavras-chave: Dados de Citação; Google Acadêmico; Periódicos Científicos; Colaboração.ABSTRACT The lack of indexing for titles of scientific journals in the Social Sciences and Humanities in commercial databases makes it difficult to carry out an investigation on their impact. Open Access and tools such as Google Scholar (GS) and software for data processing allow search and the recovery of article citations, which can be regarded as an alternative for the studies on the impact of scientific production published in these areas. This study presents a pilot project for sharing citation data from Brazilian journals for further collaborative research by the national scientometrics community with the aim of encouraging greater use of GS for bibliometric purposes.Keywords: Citation Data; Google Scholar; Sharing; Journals; Scientific Collaboration.

The field-specific citation and usage patterns of book literature in the Book Citation Index

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-214
Author(s):  
Pei-Shan Chi
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Document Type ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
The Social ◽  
Usage Patterns ◽  
Data Source ◽  
Social Sciences Citation Index ◽  
Different Sources ◽  
Usage Data

Abstract The usage data provided by Web of Science Core Collection (WoS) implies the scholarly interest of researchers through full text accesses and record saves on the platform. The WoS usage count has been studied for journal papers alongside citations at different levels of journal, country, and field. To extend the results of the previous studies, this study explores the WoS usage counts for book literature in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) to determine the usefulness of the usage statistics provided by the new data source and their different patterns across fields as well as document types. The correlations between WoS citations and usage counts are from weak to moderate in six selected fields. Edited books have stronger correlations between the two metrics than the other two document type groups. Usage data of aggregated book volumes in the sciences correlate with citations significantly and show higher utilization rates than citations. Their usage counts on the same platform are the supplement of WoS citations in the fields. In contrast, book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) present a different pattern of their usage to reduce its ability to coordinate citations. In addition, the low usage of books in SSH may indicate the limited access of the BKCI-SSH and probably lower effectiveness of its usage data compared to the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). However, the further investigation of altmetric usage metrics from different sources confirms an overall lower usage for books in the social sciences than in the sciences.

scholarly journals Mapping Diversity of Publication Patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities: An Approach Making Use of Fuzzy Cluster Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederik T. Verleysen ◽  
Arie Weeren
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Fuzzy Cluster ◽  
Fuzzy Cluster Analysis ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
Publication Patterns ◽  
The Social ◽  
Publication Language

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.

scholarly journals Worlding the Social Sciences and Humanities

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theo D’haen
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
World Literature ◽  
Economic Conditions ◽  
Research Knowledge ◽  
The West ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
The Social ◽  
Study And Teaching ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Political Decisions

Under the impact of globalization, the study and teaching of the social sciences and humanities is rapidly changing. In many ways, what we see is a growing transfer of research, knowledge, and method from the West to other parts of the world, and in the first instance China. This development is steered by far-reaching changes in the organization of higher education in both the West and in this case China, changes that in themselves have to do with changing economic conditions, and the political decisions following from them, as the result of globalization. In the final part of this article I focus upon how this works out in one particular field or discipline in the humanities: world literature.1

scholarly journals Quantitative quality: a study on how performance-based measures may change the publication patterns of Danish researchers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniella Bayle Deutz ◽  
Thea Marie Drachen ◽  
Dorte Drongstrup ◽  
Niels Opstrup ◽  
Charlotte Wien
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Potential Effect ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
Publication Patterns ◽  
Quantitative Performance ◽  
New Research ◽  
Academic Authors ◽  
The Impact

AbstractNations the world over are increasingly turning to quantitative performance-based metrics to evaluate the quality of research outputs, as these metrics are abundant and provide an easy measure of ranking research. In 2010, the Danish Ministry of Science and Higher Education followed this trend and began portioning out a percentage of the available research funding according to how many research outputs each Danish university produces. Not all research outputs are eligible: only those published in a curated list of academic journals and publishers, the so-called BFI list, are included. The BFI list is ranked, which may create incentives for academic authors to target certain publication outlets or publication types over others. In this study we examine the potential effect these relatively new research evaluation methods have had on the publication patterns of researchers in Denmark. The study finds that publication behaviors in the Natural Sciences & Technology, Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) have changed, while the Health Sciences appear unaffected. Researchers in Natural Sciences & Technology appear to focus on high impact journals that reap more BFI points. While researchers in SSH have also increased their focus on the impact of the publication outlet, they also appear to have altered their preferred publication types, publishing more journal articles in the Social Sciences and more anthologies in the Humanities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document