Do social sciences and humanities behave like life and hard sciences?
The quantitative evaluation of Social Science and Humanities (SSH) and the investigation of the existing similarities between SSH and Life and Hard Sciences (LHS) represent the forefront of scientometrics research. We analyse the scientific production of the universe of Italian academic scholars , over a 10-year period across 2002–2012, from a national database built by the Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes. We demonstrate that all Italian scholars of SSH and LHS are equals, as far as their publishing habits. They share the same general law, which is a lognormal. At the same time, however, they are different, because we measured their scientific production with different indicators required by the Italian law; we eliminated the “silent” scholars and obtained different scaling values—proxy of their productivity rates. Our findings may be useful to further develop indirect quali–quantitative comparative analysis across heterogeneous disciplines and, more broadly, to investigate on the generative mechanisms behind the observed empirical regularities.
KeywordsEvaluation Bibliometrics Social sciences and humanities Normalization Scaling Universality Italy
- Deville, P., Wang, D., Sinatra, R., Song, C., Blondel, V. D., & Barabsi, A. L. (2014). Career on the move: geography, stratification, and scientific impact. Scientific Reports, 4(4770), 4770.Google Scholar
- Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (1990). Introduction to informetrics. Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Ferrara, A., & Bonaccorsi, A. (2016). How robust is journal ratingin Humanities and Social Science? Evidence from a large-scale,multi-method exercise. Research Evaluation, February 2016. dOI:10.1093/reseval/rvv048.
- Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. Moed, W. Glanzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology studies (pp. 473–496). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientic productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 317323.Google Scholar
- Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Stringer, M. J., SalesPardo, M., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2010). Statistical validation of a global model for the distribution of the ultimate number of citations accrued by papers published in a scientific journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1377–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Zuccala, A., & Cornacchia, R. (2016). Data matching, integration,and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs. Scientometrics, 1–20.Google Scholar
- Zuccala, A. (2013). Evaluating the Humanities. Vitalizing ’the forgotten sciences’, Research Trends, n., 32, 3–6.Google Scholar