IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v94y2013i3d10.1007_s11192-012-0838-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez

    (Centre for Human and Social Sciences)

  • Elea Giménez-Toledo

    (Centre for Human and Social Sciences)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez & Elea Giménez-Toledo, 2013. "Scholarly publishing in social sciences and humanities, associated probabilities of belonging and its spectrum: a quantitative approach for the Spanish case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 893-910, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:94:y:2013:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0838-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0838-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-012-0838-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-012-0838-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anton J. Nederhof, 2006. "Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(1), pages 81-100, January.
    2. Anthony F.J. van Raan, 2006. "Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators: Research group indicator distributions and correlations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(3), pages 408-430, February.
    3. Mu‐hsuan Huang & Yu‐wei Chang, 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, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(11), pages 1819-1828, September.
    4. John Rigby, 2005. "Handcrafted by 16 men: The impact of single and multiple authorship in collaborative research networks," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 199-206, December.
    5. Blaise Cronin & Debora Shaw & Kathryn La Barre, 2003. "A cast of thousands: Coauthorship 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, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(9), pages 855-871, July.
    6. Éric Archambault & Étienne Vignola-Gagné & Grégoire Côté & Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingrasb, 2006. "Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 329-342, September.
    7. Moed, Henk F., 2010. "Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 265-277.
    8. Martin Reinhart, 2009. "Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine. Reliability, fairness, and validity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 789-809, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Per Ahlgren & Peter Pagin & Olle Persson & Maria Svedberg, 2015. "Bibliometric analysis of two subdomains in philosophy: free will and sorites," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 47-73, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrea Mervar & Maja Jokić, 2022. "Core-periphery nexus in the EU social sciences: bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 5793-5817, October.
    2. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    3. Ülle Must, 2012. "Alone or together: examples from history research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 527-537, May.
    4. Ekaterina L. Dyachenko, 2014. "Internationalization of academic journals: Is there still a gap between social and natural sciences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 241-255, October.
    5. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Cinzia Daraio & Stefano Fantoni & Viola Folli & Marco Leonetti & Giancarlo Ruocco, 2017. "Do social sciences and humanities behave like life and hard sciences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 607-653, July.
    6. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    7. Kousha, Kayvan & Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Can Microsoft Academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 972-984.
    8. A. J. M. Linmans, 2010. "Why with bibliometrics the Humanities does not need to be the weakest link," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 337-354, May.
    9. Ekaterina Dyachenko, 2013. "Internationalization of academic journals: is there still a gap between social and natural sciences?," HSE Working papers WP BRP 28/HUM/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    10. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    11. Walters, William H., 2017. "Do subjective journal ratings represent whole journals or typical articles? Unweighted or weighted citation impact?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 730-744.
    12. Sándor Soós & Zsófia Vida & András Schubert, 2018. "Long-term trends in the multidisciplinarity of some typical natural and social sciences, and its implications on the SSH versus STM distinction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 795-822, March.
    13. Alesia Zuccala & Roberto Cornacchia, 2016. "Data matching, integration, and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 465-484, July.
    14. Franc Mali, 2013. "Why an Unbiased External R&D Evaluation System is Important for the Progress of Social Sciences—the Case of a Small Social Science Community," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-14, December.
    15. Mladen Djuric & Marina Dobrota & Jovan Filipovic, 2020. "Complexity-based quality indicators for human and social capital in science and research: the case of Serbian Homeland versus Diaspora," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 303-328, July.
    16. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-Garcia & Juan Gorraiz, 2017. "Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1371-1384, December.
    17. Alasdair Reid, 2023. "Closing the Affordable Housing Gap: Identifying the Barriers Hindering the Sustainable Design and Construction of Affordable Homes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-27, May.
    18. Natascha Helena Franz Hoppen & Samile Andréa de Souza Vanz, 2023. "The development of Brazilian women’s and gender studies: a bibliometric diagnosis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 227-261, January.
    19. Emanuel Kulczycki & Władysław Marek Kolasa & Krystian Szadkowski, 2021. "Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin as highly cited researchers? Historical bibliometrics study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8683-8700, October.
    20. Ioan Ianoş & Alexandru-Ionuţ Petrişor, 2020. "An Overview of the Dynamics of Relative Research Performance in Central-Eastern Europe Using a Ranking-Based Analysis Derived from SCImago Data," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-25, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social sciences; Humanities; Quality indicators; Logistic regression; Classification of knowledge;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C4 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:94:y:2013:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0838-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.