Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 83, Issue 2, pp 337–354 | Cite as

Why with bibliometrics the Humanities does not need to be the weakest link

Indicators for research evaluation based on citations, library holdings, and productivity measures
  • A. J. M. LinmansEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this study an attempt is made to establish new bibliometric indicators for the assessment of research in the Humanities. Data from a Dutch Faculty of Humanities was used to provide the investigation a sound empirical basis. For several reasons (particularly related to coverage) the standard citation indicators, developed for the sciences, are unsatisfactory. Target expanded citation analysis and the use of oeuvre (lifetime) citation data, as well as the addition of library holdings and productivity indicators enable a more representative and fair assessment. Given the skew distribution of population data, individual rankings can best be determined based on log transformed data. For group rankings this is less urgent because of the central limit theorem. Lifetime citation data is corrected for professional age by means of exponential regression.

Keywords

Bibliometrics Humanities Citation analysis Library holding analysis Research evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I wish to express my gratitude to the Executive Board of Leiden University, and especially its former Vice-Rector magnificus Professor Ton van Haaften, for the opportunity given to carry out this study. I am indebted to Professors Geert Booij and Wim van der Doel, Deans of the Leiden Faculty of Humanities and their staff, and Piet van Slooten, Director of Academic Affairs at Leiden University, and his staff for their encouragement and support. The project would not have been possible without Professor Anthony van Raan, Director of CWTS, who offered the stimulating environment of his institute and who read the manuscript. Henk Moed, Ton Nederhof, Martijn Visser, and my other colleagues at the CWTS helped me by commenting on parts of the preliminary report and by supplying extra data. I am grateful to Henk Moed for his encouraging me to investigate library catalogues as a bibliometric source. I thank the peer reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Archambault, É., et al. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68, 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burrell, Q. L. (1990). Empirical prediction of library circulations based on negative binomial processes. In L. Egghe & R. Rousseau (Eds.), Informetrics 89/90 (pp. 57–64). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, L., & Visser, M. S. (2006). Extending citation analysis to non-source items. Scientometrics, 66, 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cronin, B., & Snyder, H. (1997). Comparative citation rankings of authors in monographic and journal literature: A study of sociology. Journal of Documentation, 53, 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dekking, F. M., Kraaikamp, C., Lopuhaä, H. P., & Meester, L. E. (2005). A modern introduction to probability and statistics: Understanding why and how. London: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. de Solla Price, D. J. (1970). Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and nonscience. In C. E. Nelson & D. K. Pollock (Eds.), Communication among scientists and engineers (pp. 3–22). Lexington: Heath.Google Scholar
  7. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. arXiv:physics/0508025Google Scholar
  8. Larivière, V., et al. (2006). The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 997–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leydesdorff, L., & Bensman, S. (2006). Classification and powerlaws: The logarithmic transformation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 1470–1486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y., & Warner, J. (1996). The role of monographs in scholarly communication: An empirical study of Philosophy, Sociology and Economics. Journal of Documentation, 52, 389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Line, M. B. (1979). The influence of the type of sources used on the results of citation analyses. Journal of Documentation, 35, 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Linmans, A. J. M. (2008). Wetenschappelijk onderzoek in de Faculteit der Letteren van de Universiteit Leiden: Een onderzoek naar bibliometrische indicatoren voor het bepalen van impact van wetenschappelijk onderzoek in de geesteswetenschappen. Leiden: CWTS.Google Scholar
  13. Luwel, M., Moed, H. F., Nederhof, A. J., et al. (1999). Towards indicators of research performance in the social sciences and humanities: An exploratory study in the fields of Law and Linguistics at Flemish Universities. Brussel: Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad.Google Scholar
  14. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66, 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Snow, C. P. (1959/1964). The two cultures: And a second look. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Torres-Salinas, D., & Moed, H. F. (2009). Library catalog analysis as a tool in studies of social sciences and humanities: An exploratory study of published book titles in Economics. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Leeuwen, Th. N., Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Raan, A. F. J. (2006). Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators: Research group indicator distributions and correlations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 408–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations