Advertisement

European Political Science

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 491–509 | Cite as

The development of political science in Central and Eastern Europe: bibliometric perspective, 1996–2013

  • Maja JokićEmail author
  • Andrea Mervar
  • Stjepan Mateljan
Research

Abstract

This research aims to develop a deeper insight into the development of political science from the bibliometric perspective by analysing peer-reviewed journal articles (n = 1117) indexed in the Scopus database and published by authors from fifteen Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries in the period 1996–2013. Results indicate that the majority of articles (84%) by CEE authors have been published in international journals and in the English language. The visibility of these articles in international journals, measured by the mean number of citations, is 5.2 per paper, while the same indicator for CEE journal articles amounts to 0.2. Authorship analysis indicates a gradual but continuous increase in co-authorships. Additionally, there are significant differences in citations between single-authored and co-authored articles, both in international and CEE journals. Co-authorship among CEE authors is present in only 1% of the analysed articles, confirming weak collaboration between political scientists in CEE countries.

Keywords

Bibliometric analysis Central and Eastern Europe Political science journals 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the Croatian Science Foundation under the project IP-09-2014-9351 (RACOSS).

References

  1. Abadal, E., R. Melero, R.S. Rodrigues, and M. Navas-Fernández. 2015. Spanish scholarly journals in WoS and Scopus: The impact of open access. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 47(1): 77–96.  https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.47.1.04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altman, D. 2012. Where is knowledge generated? On the productivity and impact of political science departments in Latin America. European Political Science 11(1): 71–87.  https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2010.82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angstrom, J., E. Hedenstrom, and L.-I. Strom. 2003. Survival of the most cited? Small political science communities and international influence: The case of Sweden. European Political Science 2(3): 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archambault, É., D. Campbell, Y. Gingras, and V. Larivière. 2009. Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60(7): 1320–1326.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bardi, L. 2011. Forty years of political science in Europe: The European consortium for political research celebrates its ruby anniversary. PS: Political Science & Politics 44(1): 93–95.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096510002179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernauer, T., and F. Gilardi. 2010. Publication output of Swiss political science departments. Swiss Political Science Review 16(2): 279–303.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2010.tb00160.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bibič, A. 1996. The development of political science in Slovenia: Democratisation and transformation of the discipline. European Journal of Political Research 29(4): 425–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butler, L., and I. McAllister. 2009. Metrics or peer review? Evaluating the 2001 UK research assessment exercise in political science. Political Studies Review 7(1): 3–17.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2008.00167.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chi, P.-S. 2012. Bibliometric characteristics of political science research in Germany. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Annual Meeting 49(1): 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504901115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chi, P.-S. 2014. Changing publication and citation patterns in political science in Germany. Scientometrics 105(3): 1833–1848.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1609-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coakley, J., and J. Doyle. 1998. Developments in European political science journals and electronic literature during 1997. European Journal of Political Research 33(4): 525–547.Google Scholar
  12. Czaputowicz, J., and A. Wojciuk. 2016. IR scholarship in Poland: The state of the discipline 25 years after the transition to democracy. Journal of International Relations & Development 19(3): 448–474.  https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2014.21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daalder, H. 2010. Political science in Europe and the ECPR: Looking back and looking on. European Political Science 9(Supplement 1): S30–S37.  https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2010.42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dale, T., and D. Goldfinch. 2005. Notes on article citation rates and productivity of Australasian political science units 1995–2002. Australian Journal of Political Science 40(3): 425–434.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10361140500203951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donovan, C. 2009. Gradgrinding the social sciences: The politics of metrics of political science. Political Studies Review 7(1): 73–83.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2008.00172.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dubrow, J.K., and M. Kołczyńska. 2015. ‘Who owns the study of democracy? Sociology, political science and the interdisciplinary promise of political sociology since 1945 [A quem pertence o estudo da democracia? Sociologia, ciência política e a promessa da interdisciplinaridade na Sociologia política desde 1945]. Sociologias 17(38): 92–119.  https://doi.org/10.1590/15174522-017003805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eisfeld, R. and L.A. Pal (eds.). 2010a. Political science in Central-East Europe: Diversity and convergence. Opladen and Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Eisfeld, R., and L.A. Pal. 2010b. Political science in Central-East Europe and the impact of politics: Factors of diversity, forces of convergence. European Political Science 9(2): 223–243.  https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2010.11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fink-Hafner, D., and T. Deželan. 2014. The political science professional project in Slovenia: from communist monism, democratisation and Europeanisation to the financial crisis [Stručni projekt studija političkih znanosti u Sloveniji: Od komunističkoga monizma, demokratizacije i europeizacije do financijske krize]. Društvena istraživanja 23(1): 133–153.  https://doi.org/10.5559/di.23.1.07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fowler, J.H., B. Grofman, and N. Masuoka. 2007. Social networks in political science: Hiring and placement of Ph.D.s, 1960–2002. PS: Political Science & Politics 40(4): 729–739.Google Scholar
  21. Furlong, P. 2007. The European conference of National Political Science Associations: problems and possibilities of co-operation. In The state of political science in Western Europe, ed. H.-D. Klingemann, 401–407. Opladen and Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ghica, L.A. 2014. Academic bovarism and the pursuit of legitimacy: Canon-building in Romanian political science. European Political Science 13(2): 171–186.  https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2014.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldsmith, M., and C. Goldsmith. 2010. Teaching political science in Europe. European Political Science 9(Suppl 1): S61–S71.  https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2010.38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grdešić, I. 1996. The development of political science in Croatia: Meeting the challenges of democracy and independence. European Journal of Political Research 29(4): 405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hix, S. 2004. A global ranking of political science departments. Political Studies 2(3): 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holzer, J. 1989. Quality in the transitional process of establishing political science as a new discipline in Czech higher education (post 1989). In Leadership and management of quality in higher education, ed. C.S. Nair, L. Webster, and P. Mertova, 137–146., Chandos learning and teaching series Oxford: Chandos Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-84334-576-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jokić, M., K. Zauder, and S. Letina. 2012 The features of Croatian national and international scholarly productivity in social sciences, arts and humanities 19912005 [Karakteristike hrvatske nacionalne i međunarodne znanstvene produkcije u društveno-humanističkim znanostima i umjetničkom području za razdoblje 1991–2005]. Zagreb: Institut za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu.Google Scholar
  28. Karasimeonov, G. 1997. The development of political science in Bulgaria: A discipline in transition. European Journal of Political Research 31(4): 519–532.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kasapović, M. 2008. Political science in Croatia 1962–2007. European Political Science 7(2): 237–246.  https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2008.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kasapović, M. 2015. Political science in Croatia at the beginning of the 21st century. In Political Science in Europe at the beginning of the 21st century, ed. B. Krauz-Mozer, M. Kułakowska, P. Borowiec, and P. Ścigaj, 39–62. Krakow: Jagiellonian University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Klingemann, H.-D. 2008. Capacities: Political science in Europe. West European Politics 31(1–2): 370–396.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380701835181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krupavičius, A. 1997. The development of political science in Lithuania: Years of the breakthrough. European Journal of Political Research 31(4): 499–517.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Masuoka, N., B. Grofman, and S.L. Feld. 2007a. The production and placement of political science Ph.D.s, 1902–2000. PS—Political Science & Politics 40(2): 361–366.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096507070576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Masuoka, N., B. Grofman, and S.L. Feld. 2007b. Ranking departments: A comparison of alternative approaches. PS—Political Science & Politics 40(3): 531–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGrath, C. 2008. Increasing co-operation among political science associations in Europe. European Political Science 7(3): 352–365.  https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2008.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Metz, T., and S. Jäckle. 2013. Co-authorships in German political science—A network analysis based on journal articles [Koautorenschaften in der deutschsprachigen Politikwissenschaft—Eine netzwerkanalyse auf Basis von Fachzeitschriftenartikeln]. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 54(2): 256–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moed, H.F., M. Aisati, and A. Plume. 2013. Studying scientific migration in Scopus. Scientometrics 94(3): 929–942.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0783-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Muskens, G., and R. Kinnear. 1993. Political and multicultural constraints of the social sciences in Europe: Cultural contact, schismogenesis and institutional change. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 6(2): 211–228.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.1993.9968349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Newton, K., and J.M. Vallès. 1991. Introduction: Political science in Western Europe, 1960–1990. European Journal of Political Research 20(3–4): 227–238.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1991.tb00268.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nisonger, T.E. 1993. A ranking of political science journals based on citation data. Serials Review 19(4): 7–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-7913(93)90027-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nisonger, T.E. 2002. The relationship between international editorial board composition and citation measures in political science, business, and genetics journals. Scientometrics 54(2): 257–268.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016065929026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Plümper, T., and C.M. Radaelli. 2004. Publish or perish? Publications and citations of Italian political scientists in international political science journals, 1990–2002. Journal of European Public Policy 11(6): 1112–1127.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176042000298138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Robey, J.S. 1979. Political science departments: Reputations versus productivity. PS: Political Science & Politics 12(2): 202–209.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909650000696X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Samuels, D.J. 2011. The modal number of citations to political science articles is greater than zero: Accounting for citations in articles and books. PS: Political Science & Politic 44(4): 783–792.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096511001259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sapotichne, J.B., D. Jones, and M. Wolfe. 2007. Is urban politics a black hole? Analyzing the boundary between political science and urban politics. Urban Affairs Review 43(1): 76–106.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087407302901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schneider, C.Q., D. Bochsler, and M. Chiru. 2013. Comparative politics in Central and Eastern Europe: Mapping publications over the past 20 years. European Political Science 12(1): 127–145.  https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2012.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Waismel-Manor, I., and T.J. Lowi. 2011. Politics in motion: A personal history of political science. New Political Science 33(1): 59–78.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2011.544478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams, H., S. Bates, L. Jenkins, D. Luke, and K. Rogers. 2015. Gender and journal authorship: An assessment of articles published by women in three top British political science and international relations journals. European Political Science 14(2): 116–130.  https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2015.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wright, B.E. 2011. Public administration as an interdisciplinary field: Assessing its relationship with the fields of law, management, and political science. Public Administration Review 71(1): 96–101.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02310.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zajc, D. 2013. The development of political science in Slovenia—Options and opportunities [Razvoj politologije v Sloveniji—Možnosti in priložnosti]. Teorija in praksa 50(2): 317–329.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Consortium for Political Research 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Social Research in ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.The Institute of Economics, ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations