, Volume 83, Issue 2, pp 375–395 | Cite as

Croatian scholarly productivity 1991–2005 measured by journals indexed in Web of Science

  • Maja JokićEmail author
  • Krešimir Zauder
  • Srebrenka Letina


The purpose of the research was to establish and inform about the features of productivity across all scholarly fields measured through journals indexed in WoS in which Croatian authors working in Croatian institutions published since independence (1991) to 2005. Total 19,929 papers in 2,946 journals were found. Of these, 17,875 papers were published in 2,690 science, technology and medicine (STM) journals, 1,869 papers were published in 178 social science journals, and 185 were published in 78 A&H journals according to custom classification used in the research. Special attention was given to publishing features of specific scholarly fields. The number of different journals in which the papers were published per year has doubled in the period (from 404 in 1991 to 894 in 2005). To support additional insight, a distinction between national and international journals was made and top 10% journals according to JCR 2005 categories were identified by IF. National journals accounted for 15.9% of STM papers, 77.6% of social science papers and 25.9% of A&H papers. Top 10% journals accounted for a total of 368 journals and 2,336 papers with significant variations across the subfields.


Scholarly productivity Scientific productivity Croatia WoS Journal evaluation 



This work was supported by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sport. Grant No. 132-0000000-1489.


  1. Andreis, M., & Jokić, M. (2008). An impact of Croatian journals measured by citation analysis from SCI-expanded database in time span 1975–2001. Scientometrics, 75, 263–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archambault, E., Vignola-Gagne, E., Cote, G., et al. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities the limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68, 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butler, L. (2003). Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications—the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cullars, J. M. (1998). Citation characteristics of English-language monographs in philosophy. Library & Information Science Research, 20, 41–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hjorland, B. (2005). Library and information science and philosophy of science. Journal of Documentation, 61, 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ingwersen, P., Larsen, B., & Noyons, E. (2001). Mapping national research profiles in social science disciplines. Journal of Documentation, 57, 715–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jokić, M. (2003). Evaluation of Croatian journals covered by the ISI databases (Institute for Scientific Information). Periodicum biologorum, 105, 95–98.Google Scholar
  8. Jokić M. (2006). Scientometrijski pristup znanstvenom radu u polju filozofije. Prolegomena, 5, 99–110. Available at
  9. Klaic, Z. B., & Klaic, B. (2004). Croatian scientific publications in top journals according to the Science Citation Index for the 1980–2000 period. Scientometrics, 61, 221–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kyvik, S. (2003). Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980–2000. Scientometrics, 58, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, E. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68, 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moed, H. F. (2005). Differences between science, social science and humanities. In H. F. Moed (Ed.), Citation analysis in research evaluation (pp. 147–153). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Moed, H. F., Luwel, M., & Nederhof, A. J. (2002). Towards research performance in the humanities. Library Trends, 50, 498–520.Google Scholar
  14. Nederhof, A. J. (2005). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66, 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Prpić, K. (2007). Changes of scientific knowledge production and research productivity in a transitional society. Scientometrics, 72, 487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Szostak, R. (2008). Classification, interdisciplinarity, and the study science. Journal of Documentation, 64, 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vanecek, J. (2008). Bibliometric analysis of the Czech research publications from 1994 to 2005. Scientometrics, 77, 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maja Jokić
    • 1
    Email author
  • Krešimir Zauder
    • 1
  • Srebrenka Letina
    • 1
  1. 1.Croatian Institute for LibrarianshipNational and University Library of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations