, Volume 83, Issue 2, pp 363–374 | Cite as

Highly cited non-journal publications in political science, economics and psychology: a first exploration

  • Anton J. NederhofEmail author
  • Thed N. van Leeuwen
  • Anthony F. J. van Raan


In this study we show that it is possible to identify top-cited publications other than Web of Science (WoS) publications, particularly non-journal publications, within fields in the social and behavioral sciences. We analyzed references in publications that were themselves highly cited, with at least one European address. Books represent between 62 (psychology) and 81% (political science) of the non-WoS references, journal articles 15–24%. Books (economics, political science) and manuals (psychology) account for the most highly cited publications. Between 50 (psychology, political science) and 71% (economics) of the top-ranked most cited publications originated from the US versus between 18 (economics) and 38% (psychology) from Europe. Finally, it is discussed how the methods and procedures of the study can be optimized.


Citation analysis Social and behavioral sciences Non-journal publications Political science Psychology Economics Highly cited publications Books 



The authors thank Bert van der Wurff for his assistance in the data analysis and in the identification of the publications behind the large amount of references strings.


  1. Butler, L., & Visser, M. S. (2006). Extending citation analysis to non-source items. Scientometrics, 66, 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cronin, B., Snyder, H., & Atkins, H. (1997). Comparative citation rankings of authors in monographic and journal literature: A study of sociology. Journal of Documentation, 53, 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing—its theory and applications in science, technology and humanities. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1999). A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and the social sciences. Information Processing and Management, 35, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44, 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kyvik, S. (2003). Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980–2000. Scientometrics, 58, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lewison, G. (2001). Evaluation of books as research outputs in history of medicine. Research Evaluation, 10, 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y., & Warner, J. (1996). The role of monographs in scholarly communication: An empirical study of philosophy, sociology and economics. Journal of Documentation, 54, 389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lisee, C., Lariviere, V., & Archambault, E. (2008). Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1776–1784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Nederhof, A. J. (1989). Books and chapters are not to be neglected in measuring research productivity. American Psychologist, 44, 734–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66, 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nederhof, A. J. (2008). Policy impact of bibliometric rankings of research performance of departments and individuals in economics. Scientometrics, 74, 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nederhof, A. J., Zwaan, R. A., de Bruin, R. E., & Dekker, P. J. (1989). Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social sciences. Scientometrics, 15, 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schubert, A., Glaenzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2006). The weight of author self-citations. A fractional approach to self-citation counting. Scientometrics, 67, 503–505.Google Scholar
  16. Thompson, J. W. (2002). The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary research. Libri, 52, 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tijssen, R. J. W., Hollanders, H., van Leeuwen, Th. N., & Nederhof, A. J. (2008). Science and technology indicators 2008: Summary, Netherlands observatory of science and technology. The Hague: Ministry of Education, Culture and Sciences. Available via
  18. Van Leeuwen, T. N. (2006). The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research: Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible. Scientometrics, 66, 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Measuring Science. Capita Selecta of current main issues. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 19–50). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Visser, M. S., Moed, H. F., Spruyt, E., & Nederhof, A. J. (2004). Bibliometrische Studie van de Faculteit Toegepaste Economische Wetenschappen aan de Universiteit Antwerpen 1992–2001. Leiden: CWTS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anton J. Nederhof
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thed N. van Leeuwen
    • 1
  • Anthony F. J. van Raan
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations