, Volume 111, Issue 3, pp 1673–1686 | Cite as

Profiles of monograph authors in the social sciences and humanities: an analysis of productivity, career stage, co-authorship, disciplinary affiliation and gender, based on a regional bibliographic database

  • Frederik T. Verleysen
  • Truyken L. B. Ossenblok


Scholarly monograph authors are compared to other authors, based on bibliographic data registered in the VABB-SHW database from Flanders (Belgium). Monograph authors are found to be most often established male researchers with high productivity, who are relatively less involved in research collaboration (co-authored publications) than are other authors. There exists a clear divergence between most of the individual social science disciplines, where monograph authors make up a marginal share of all authors, and several humanities disciplines where shares are up to one fifth. Relatively more female and non-established authors publish monographs in the humanities compared to the social sciences. A statistical comparison of productivity points to diverging publication patterns in Flemish SSH research: the group of most productive authors counts both monograph authors who also rely on other book publication types, and other authors who publish mostly journal articles.


Social sciences and humanities Books Disciplinary affiliation Career-stage Gender Co-authorship Productivity 


  1. Borghart, P. (2013). A label for peer-reviewed books. Learned Publishing, 26, 167–171. doi:10.1087/20130303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cronin, B., & La Barre, K. (2004). Mickey Mouse and Milton: Book publishing in the humanities. Learned Publishing, 17(2), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Díaz-Faes, A. A., Bordons, M., van Leeuwen, T., & Galindo, M. P. (2015). Outlining the scientific activity profile of researchers in the social sciences and humanities in Spain: The case of CSIC. In A. A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A. A. Akdag Salah, C. R. Sugimoto, & U. Al (Eds.), Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 29 June to 3 July 2015. Istanbul: Bogaziçi University Printhouse.Google Scholar
  4. Engels, T. C. E., Ossenblok, T. L. B., & Spruyt, E. H. J. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics, 93(2), 373–390. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0680-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Giménez-Toledo, E., Manana-Rodriguez, J., Engels, T. C. E., Ingwersen, P., Pölönen, J., Sivertsen, G., et al. (2016). Taking scholarly books into account. Current developments in five European countries. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1886-5.Google Scholar
  6. Giménez-Toledo, E., Tejada-Artigas, C., & Manana-Rodriguez, J. (2013). Evaluation of scientific books’ publishers in social sciences and humanities: Results of a survey. Research Evaluation, 22, 64–77. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvs036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gorraiz, J., Purnell, P. J., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Opportunities and limitations of the Book Citation Index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1388–1398. doi:10.1002/asi.22875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hammarfelt, B., & de Rijcke, S. (2015). Accountability in context: Effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms and individual working routines in the faculty of arts at Uppsala University. Research Evaluation, 24, 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Web indicators for research evaluation. Part 3: books and non-standard outputs. El professional de la informacion, 26(6), 724–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Somayeh, R. (2011). Assessing the citation impact of books: the role of Google books, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2147–2164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kyvik, S. (1991). Productivity in academia: Scientific publishing at Norwegian universities. Trogstadt: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Leydesdorff, L., & Felt, U. (2012). Edited volumes, monographs and book chapters in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) and Science Citation Index (SCI, SoSCI, A&HCI). Journal of Scientometric Research, 1, 28–34. doi:10.5530/jscires.2012.1.7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. OAPEN-UK. (2014). Survey of use of monographs by academics—as authors and readers (Report). Retrieved from
  14. Ossenblok, T. L. B. (2016). Scientific communication in the social sciences and humanities. Analysis of publication and collaboration in Flanders. (Doctoral dissertation). Antwerp: University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
  15. Ossenblok, T. L. B., & Engels, T. C. E. (2015). Edited books in the social sciences and humanities: Characteristics and collaboration analysis. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1544-3.Google Scholar
  16. Ossenblok, T. L. B., Engels, T. C. E., & Sivertsen, G. (2012). The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science. A comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005–9). Research Evaluation, 21, 280–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ossenblok, T. L. B., Guns, R., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Book editors in the social sciences and humanities: an analysis of publication and collaboration patterns of established researchers in Flanders. Learned Publishing, 28, 261–273. doi:10.1087/20150405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Puuska, H.-M. (2010). Effects of scholar's gender and professional position on publishing productivity in different publication types. Analysis of a Finnish university. Scientometrics, 82(2), 419–437. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0037-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Puuska, H.-M. (2014). Scholarly publishing patterns in FinlandA comparison of disciplinary groups. (Doctoral dissertation). Tampere: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
  20. Sivertsen, G., & Larsen, B. (2012). Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: An empirical analysis of the potential. Scientometrics, 91(2), 567–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thompson, J. W. (2002). The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship. Libri, 52, 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thompson, J. B. (2005). Books in the digital age. The transformation of academic and higher education publishing in Britain and the United States. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  23. Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-Garcia, N., Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2013a). Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: Edited books, book series and publisher types in the Book Citation Index. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2113–2127. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1168-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Torres-Salinas, D., Rodriguez-Sanchez, R., Robinson-Garcia, N., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. A. G. (2013b). Mapping citation patterns of book chapters in the Book Citation Index. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 412–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2014a). Barycenter representation of book publishing internationalization in the social sciences and humanities. Journal of Informetrics, 8, 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2014b). Internationalization of peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed book publications in the social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1431–1444. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1267-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Verleysen, F. T., Ghesquière, P., & Engels, T. C. E. (2014c). The objectives, design and selection process of the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW). In W. Blockmans et al. (Eds.), The use and abuse of bibliometrics (pp. 115-125): Academiae Europaea; Portland Press.Google Scholar
  28. Verleysen, F. T., & Weeren, A. (2016). Clustering by publication patterns of senior authors in the social sciences and humanities. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 254–272. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. White, H. D., Boell, S. K., 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
  30. Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Zuccala, A., Verleysen, F. T., Cornacchia, R., & Engels, T. C. E. (2015). Altmetrics for the humanities: comparing Goodreads reader ratings with ciatations to history books. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 320–336. doi:10.1108/AJIM-11-2014-0152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederik T. Verleysen
    • 1
  • Truyken L. B. Ossenblok
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM), Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations