Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and beha vioural sciences: A comparative study

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An evaluation was made of the use of bibliometric indicators for five disciplines in the humanities (social history, general linguistics, general literature, Dutch literature, and Dutch language) and three disciplines in the social and behavioural sciences (experimental psychology, anthropology, and public administration) in the Netherlands. Articles in journals were the predominant outlet in all disciplines. Monographs and popularizing articles were more important outlets in ‘softer’ fields than in ‘harder’ ones. The enlightenment function of scholarship was especially evident in Dutch literature and language, and public administration. Only some of the humanities disciplines are locally oriented. Although many publications were written in English, only experimental psychology, general linguistics, anthropology, and genrral literature were internationally oriented regarding output media. The impact of departments differed greatly both within and between disciplines. For all disciplines, bibliometric indicators are potentially useful for monitoring international impact, as expert interviews confirmed. Especially in Dutch language, Dutch literature and public administration, ISI-citation data are not very useful for monitoring national impact.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. R. N. BROADUS, The literature of the social sciences: a survey of citation studies,International Social Sciences Journal, 23 (1971) 236–243.

    Google Scholar 

  2. J. R. COLE, S. COLE,Social Stratification in Science, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  3. S. COLE, The hierarchy of the sciences?American Journal of Sociology, 89 (1983) 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. S. E. COZZENS, Using the archive: Derek Price's theory of differences among the sciences,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 431–441.

    Google Scholar 

  5. C. O. FROST, The use of citations in literary research,Library Quarterly, 49 (1979) 399–414.

    Google Scholar 

  6. E. GARFIELD,Citation Indexing, New York, Wiley-Interscience, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  7. E. GARFIELD, Is information retrieval in the arts and humanities inherently different from that in science?Library Quarterly, 50 (1980) No. 1, 40–57.

    Google Scholar 

  8. E. GARFIELD, Data from the Arts & Humanities Citation Index reveal the interrelationships of science and the humanities,Current Comments, 46 (1982) 758–760.

    Google Scholar 

  9. E. GARFIELD, The 250 most-cited authors in the arts & Humanities Citation Index, 1976–1983,Current Comments, 48 (1986) 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. HEINZKILL, Characteristics of references in selected scholarly English literary journals,Library Quarterly, 50 (1980) 352–365.

    Google Scholar 

  11. H. F. MOED, W. J. M. BURGER, J. G. FRANKFORT, A. F. J. Van RAAN, The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance,Research Policy, 14 (1985) 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. A. J. NEDERHOF, Evaluating research output through life work citation counts,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 23–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. A. J. NEDERHOF, A. F. J. Van RAAN, Peer review and bibliometric indicators of scientific performance: A comparison of cum laude and ordinary doctorates in physics,Scientometrics, 11 (1987) 329–346 (a).

    Google Scholar 

  14. A. J. NEDERHOF, A. F. J. Van RAAN, A validation study of bibliometric indicators: the comparative performance of cum laude doctorates in chemistry. Paper presented at 12th meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, at Worchester (MA), USA, November 19–22, 1987 (b).

  15. A. J. NEDERHOF, A. F. J. Van RAAN, Citation theory and the Ortega hypothesis,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 325–328 (c).

    Google Scholar 

  16. A. J. NEDERHOF, Books and chapters are not to be neglected in measuring research productivity,American Psychologist, in press.

  17. D. De S. PRICE, Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and nonscience, In: C. E. NELSON, D. POLLACK (Eds),Communication among scientists and engineers, Lexington, Mass., Lexington books, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  18. H. G. SMALL, D. CRANE, Specialties and disciplines in science and social science: an examination of their structure using citation indexes,Scientometrics, 1 (1979) 445–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science Studies Unit, LISBON-Institute, University of Leiden, Stationsplein 242, 2312 AR, The Netherlands

    A. J. Nederhof, R. A. Zwaan, R. E. De Bruin & P. J. Dekker

Authors
  1. A. J. Nederhof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. A. Zwaan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. E. De Bruin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. J. Dekker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nederhof, A.J., Zwaan, R.A., De Bruin, R.E. et al. Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and beha vioural sciences: A comparative study. Scientometrics 15, 423–435 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017063

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017063

Keywords

Search

Navigation