Scientometrics

, Volume 94, Issue 3, pp 893–910 | Cite as

Scholarly publishing in social sciences and humanities, associated probabilities of belonging and its spectrum: a quantitative approach for the Spanish case

Article

Abstract

In this study, differences between Spanish social sciences and humanities journals are examined using a quantitative approach. Firstly, using a set of 144 psychology journals and 69 philosophy journals, statistically significant differences have been identified in 11 characteristics/indicators. Secondly, a logistic regression was carried out on the dichotomous response variable “belonging to the social sciences” or “belonging to the humanities”, on 777 Spanish social sciences journals, 563 humanities journals that have been previously classified and 17 existing predictor variables. The regression model reached an overall correct classification of 78.8 %. The explanatory variables considered in the model are analyzed and interpreted taking into account the change in the odds ratio and the indication of their contribution to the correct classification rate in the two response values. Finally the average associated probability of belonging to the social sciences group is calculated for each discipline and reflected in a spectrum of the probability of belonging to the social sciences or the humanities.

Keywords

Social sciences Humanities Quality indicators Logistic regression Classification of knowledge 

Mathematics Subject Classification

62G08 

JEL Classification

C4 

References

  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. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0115-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asanuma, Y., Oeser, A., Shintani, A. K., Turner, E., Olsen, N., Fazio, S., et al. (2003). Premature coronary-artery atherosclerosis in systemic lupus erythematosus. New England Journal of Medicine, 349(25), 2407–2415. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa035611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayer, A. E., & Smart, J. C. (1991). Career publication patterns and collaborative “styles” in American academic science. Journal of Higher Education, 62, 615–636. doi:10.2307/1982193.Google Scholar
  4. Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2003). A cast of thousands: Coautorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 855–871. doi:10.1002/asi.10278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. Online first February 2012.Google Scholar
  6. ERIH. European Reference Index for the Humanities, European Science Foundation (2012). Online resource. http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/erih-european-reference-index-for-the-humanities.html. Accessed 20 April 2012.
  7. Fink, P., Toft, T., Hansen, M. S., Ørnbøl, E., & Olesen, F. (2007). Symptoms and syndromes of bodily distress: an exploratory study of 978 internal medical, neurological, and primary care patients. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 30–39. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e31802e46eb.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finkenstaedt, T. (1990). Measuring research performance in the humanities. Scientometrics, 19, 409–417. doi:10.1007/BF02020703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00028-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gupta, B. M., Sharma, S., & Kumar, S. (1998). Growth of world and Indian physics literature. Scientometrics, 44(1), 5–16. doi:10.1007/BF02458474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hall, D. H. (1992). The science-industry interface: correlation of time series of indicators and their spectra, and growth models in the nuclear fuel industry. Scientometrics, 23(2), 237–280. doi:10.1007/BF02017911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 473–496). Dordrecht, The Nederlands: Kluwer Academic. doi:10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_22.Google Scholar
  13. Hicks, D., & Wang, J. (2009). Towards a bibliometric database for the social sciences and humanities. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/diana_hicks/18.
  14. 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. doi:10.1002/asi.20885.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leydesdorff, L., & Salah, A. A. A. (2011). Maps on the basis of the arts & humanities citation index: The journals Leonardo and art journal versus “digital humanities” as a topic. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(4), 787–801. doi:10.1002/asi.21636.Google Scholar
  16. Lovie, A. D., & Lovie, P. (1986). The flat maximum effect and linear scoring models for prediction. Journal of Forecasting, 5, 159–186. doi:10.1002/for.3980050303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 265–277. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: a review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reinhart, M. (2009). Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine. Reliability, fairness and validity. Scientometrics, 81(3), 789–809. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2220-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rigby, J. (2005). Handcrafted by 16 men: The impact of single and multiple authorship in collaborative research networks. Research Evaluation, 14, 199–206. doi:10.3152/147154405781776148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sivertsen, G., & Larsen, B. (2011). Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: an empirical analysis of the potential. Scientometrics, 91(2), 567–575. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0615-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thompson, J. W. (2002). The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship. LIBRI, 52(3), 121–136. doi:10.1515/LIBR.2002.121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Valenzuela-García, H. (1998). Una aportación teórica a la evolución del concepto, término y definición de biblioteconomía. Revista General de Información y Documentación., 8(1), 111–139.Google Scholar
  24. 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 (JASIST), 57(3), 408–430. doi:10.1002/asi.20284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. White, K. D., Dalgleish, L., & Arnold, G. (1982). Authorship patterns in psychology: National and international trends. Bulletin of Psychonomic Society, 20(4), 190–192.Google Scholar
  26. Zappia, M., Annesi, G., Nicoletti, G., et al. (2005). Sex differences in clinical and genetic determinants of levodopa peak-dose dyskinesias in Parkinson disease. Archives of Neurology, 62, 601–605. doi:10.1001/archneur.62.4.601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez
    • 1
  • Elea Giménez-Toledo
    • 1
  1. 1.Spanish National Research CouncilCentre for Human and Social SciencesMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations