, Volume 91, Issue 2, pp 527–537 | Cite as

Alone or together: examples from history research



Individualistic nature of research in the humanities is a common fact, as well as the notion that boundaries in humanities are poorly defined. Using citation analysis we have to take into account differences in citation practices not only between humanities and sciences but also within narrower fields of humanities. In the current study we observe differences between publication behaviour of historians and archaeologists, examine some aspects of citation practices in those fields, and show their effect on visibility.


History Archaeology Humanities Citation analysis 


  1. Archambault, E., Vignola-Gagne, E., Cote, G., Lariviere, V., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buchanan, A. L., & Herubel, J. P. V. M. (2011). Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(2), 160–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen, K. (2004). The construction of the Taiwan humanities citation index. Online Information Review, 28(6), 410–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cullars, J. M. (1998). Citation characteristics of English-language monographs in philosophy. Library and Information Science Research, 20(1), 41–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duff, W., Craig, B., & Cherry, J. (2004). Historians’ use of archival sources: Promises and pitfalls of the digital age. The Public Historian, 26(2), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH). Retrieved October 10, 2010 from
  7. Garfield, E. (1979). Most-cited authors in the arts and humanities 1977–1978. Current Content, 32, 5–10.Google Scholar
  8. Garfield, E. (1980). Is information retrieval in the arts and humanities inherently different from that in science? The effect that ISI’s citation index for the arts and humanities is expected to have on future scholarship. Library Quarterly, 50(1), 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garfield, E. (1982). Arts and humanities journals differ from natural and social sciences journals—but their similarities are surprising. Current Content, 47, 5–11.Google Scholar
  10. Giménez-Toledo, E., & Román-Román, A. (2009). Assessment of humanities and social sciences monographs through their publishers: A review and a study towards a model of evaluation. Research Evaluation, 18(3), 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giménez-Toledo, E., Román-Román, A., & Maria Dolores, A.-P. (2007). From experimentation to coordination in the evaluation of Spanish scientific journals in the humanities and social sciences. Research Evaluation, 16(2), 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glänzel, W. (2000). Science in scandinavia: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 48(2), 121–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Helm, T. E. (2000). What are you assessing? College Teaching, 48(3), 90–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herubel, J. P. (2007). Musings on disciplinary morphology and nomenclature in the humanities and social sciences: Implications for book selection. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39(1), 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herubel, J. P. (2008a). Acknowledging Clio’s Lesser children: The importance of journals for historical research and scholarship. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39(3), 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herubel, J. P. (2008b). Historical scholarship, periodization, themes, and specialization: Implications for research and publication. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39(2), 144–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herubel, J. P. (2009). Situating Clio’s influence in humanities and social science monographs. Disciplinary affiliations and historical scholarship. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 41(1), 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herubel, J. P. V. M., & Goedeken, E. A. (2001). Using the arts and humanities citation index to identify a community of interdisciplinary historians: An exploratory bibliometric study. Serials Librarian, 41(1), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hider, P. M. (1996). Three bibliometric analyses of anthropology literature. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 15(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang, M., & Chang, Y. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1819–1828.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Humanities indicators. Retrieved October 10, 2010 from
  23. Jones, C., Champman, M., & Woods, P. C. (1972). The characteristics of the literature used by historians. Journal of Librarianship, 4(3), 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Google book search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1537–1549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, E. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68(3), 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewison, G. (2001). Evaluation of books as research outputs in history of medicine. Research Evaluation, 10(2), 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Linmans, A. J. M. (2010). 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. Scientometrics, 83, 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Moed, H. F., Luwei, M., & Nederhof, A. J. (2002). Towards research performance in the humanities. Library Trends, 50(3), 498–520.Google Scholar
  30. Must, Ü. (1999). Estonian historical science in the 1990s. Research Evaluation, 8(2), 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Must, Ü. (2011). Alone or together—examples from history research. In Proceedings of the ISSI 2011 conference. 13th International conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics,(Vol. 2, pp. 595–604), Durban South Africa, July 4–7 2011, Leiden University and University of Zululand.Google Scholar
  32. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nederhof, A. J., & Noyons, E. C. M. (1992). International comparison of departments’ research performance in the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(3), 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nederhof, A. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (1991). Quality judgements of journals as indicators of research performance in the humanities and the social and behavioural sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 332–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 and behavioural sciences: A comparative study. Scientometrics, 15(5–6), 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Russian Index for Science Citation (RISC). Retrieved October 10, 2010 from http://eLIBRARY.RU.
  37. Serbian Citation Index. Retrieved October 10, 2010 from
  38. Sahiner, M., & Tonta, Y. (2006). Arts and humanities literature: Bibliometric characteristics of contributions by Turkish authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1011–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Šipka P. (2005). The Serbian citation index: Context and content, In Proceedings of ISSI (pp. 710–711), Stockholm, Sweden, July 24–28 2005, ISSI and Karolinska Univ. Press, Stockholm .Google Scholar
  40. Solow, R. M., Franklin, P., Jones, C. C., D’Arms, J., & Oakley, F. (2002). Making the humanities count: The importance of data. Cambridge: American Academy of Arts & Sciences.Google Scholar
  41. Su, X. N., Han, X. M., & Han, X. N. (2001). Developing the Chinese social science citation index. Online Information Review, 25(6), 365–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Su, X.N., Han, X.M., Han, X.N. (2009) Sustainable humanities report from the committee on the national plan for the future of the humanities Amsterdam University Press Commissie National Plan Toekomst Geesteswetenschappen/Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  43. 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(1), 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Webster, B. M. (1998). Polish sociology citation index as an example of usage of national citation indexes in scientometric analysis of social sciences. Journal of Information Science, 24(1), 19–32.Google Scholar
  45. White, H. D., Boell, S. B., Yu, H., Davis, M., Wilson, C. S., & Cole, F. T. H. (2009). Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(6), 1083–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Winclawska, B. M. (1996). Polish sociology citation index (principles for creation and the first results). Scientometrics, 35(3), 387–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yalcin, H. (2010). Bibliometric profile of journal of national folklore (2007–2009). Milli Folklor, 85, 205–211.Google Scholar
  48. Zhang, L., Rousseau, R., & Glaenzel, W. (2011). Document-type country profiles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1403–1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Archimedes FoundationResearch Cooperation CentreTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations