IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v111y2017i3d10.1007_s11192-017-2312-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Profiles of monograph authors in the social sciences and humanities: an analysis of productivity, career stage, co-authorship, disciplinary affiliation and gender, based on a regional bibliographic database

Author

Listed:
  • Frederik T. Verleysen

    (University of Antwerp)

  • Truyken L. B. Ossenblok

    (University of Antwerp)

Abstract

Scholarly monograph authors are compared to other authors, based on bibliographic data registered in the VABB-SHW database from Flanders (Belgium). Monograph authors are found to be most often established male researchers with high productivity, who are relatively less involved in research collaboration (co-authored publications) than are other authors. There exists a clear divergence between most of the individual social science disciplines, where monograph authors make up a marginal share of all authors, and several humanities disciplines where shares are up to one fifth. Relatively more female and non-established authors publish monographs in the humanities compared to the social sciences. A statistical comparison of productivity points to diverging publication patterns in Flemish SSH research: the group of most productive authors counts both monograph authors who also rely on other book publication types, and other authors who publish mostly journal articles.

Suggested Citation

  • Frederik T. Verleysen & Truyken L. B. Ossenblok, 2017. "Profiles of monograph authors in the social sciences and humanities: an analysis of productivity, career stage, co-authorship, disciplinary affiliation and gender, based on a regional bibliographic da," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1673-1686, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:111:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2312-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2312-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2312-3
    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/s11192-017-2312-3?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. Hanna-Mari Puuska, 2010. "Effects of scholar’s gender and professional position on publishing productivity in different publication types. Analysis of a Finnish university," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 419-437, February.
    2. Howard D. White & Sebastian K. Boell & Hairong Yu & Mari Davis & Concepción S. Wilson & Fletcher T.H. Cole, 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, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(6), pages 1083-1096, June.
    3. Verleysen, Frederik T. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2014. "Barycenter representation of book publishing internationalization in the Social Sciences and Humanities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 234-240.
    4. Juan Gorraiz & Philip J. Purnell & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1388-1398, July.
    5. Gunnar Sivertsen & Birger Larsen, 2012. "Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: an empirical analysis of the potential," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 567-575, May.
    6. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall & Somayeh Rezaie, 2011. "Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(11), pages 2147-2164, November.
    7. Torres-Salinas, Daniel & Rodríguez-Sánchez, Rosa & Robinson-García, Nicolás & Fdez-Valdivia, J. & García, J.A., 2013. "Mapping citation patterns of book chapters in the Book Citation Index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 412-424.
    8. Truyken L. B. Ossenblok & Tim C. E. Engels, 2015. "Edited books in the Social Sciences and Humanities: Characteristics and collaboration analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 219-237, July.
    9. Björn Hammarfelt & Sarah de Rijcke, 2015. "Accountability in context: effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms, and individual working routines in the faculty of Arts at Uppsala University," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 63-77.
    10. Elea Giménez-Toledo & Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez & Tim C. E. Engels & Peter Ingwersen & Janne Pölönen & Gunnar Sivertsen & Frederik T. Verleysen & Alesia A. Zuccala, 2016. "Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 685-699, May.
    11. Truyken L. B. Ossenblok & Tim C. E. Engels & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2012. "The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science--a comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005--9)," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(4), pages 280-290, September.
    12. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall & Somayeh Rezaie, 2011. "Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(11), pages 2147-2164, November.
    13. Juan Gorraiz & Philip J. Purnell & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1388-1398, July.
    14. Verleysen, Frederik T. & Weeren, Arie, 2016. "Clustering by publication patterns of senior authors in the social sciences and humanities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 254-272.
    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. Frode Eika Sandnes, 2021. "Everyone onboard? Participation ratios as a metric for research activity assessments within young universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6105-6113, July.
    2. Balázs Győrffy & Gyöngyi Csuka & Péter Herman & Ádám Török, 2020. "Is there a golden age in publication activity?—an analysis of age-related scholarly performance across all scientific disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1081-1097, August.
    3. Emanuel Kulczycki & Przemysław Korytkowski, 2020. "Researchers publishing monographs are more productive and more local-oriented," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1371-1387, November.
    4. João M. Santos & Hugo Horta & Huan Li, 2022. "Are the strategic research agendas of researchers in the social sciences determinants of research productivity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 3719-3747, July.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Elea Giménez-Toledo & Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez & Tim C. E. Engels & Peter Ingwersen & Janne Pölönen & Gunnar Sivertsen & Frederik T. Verleysen & Alesia A. Zuccala, 2016. "Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 685-699, May.
    4. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-García & Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, 2014. "Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2113-2127, March.
    5. Siluo Yang & Xin Xing & Fan Qi & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2021. "Comparison of academic book impact from a disciplinary perspective: an analysis of citations and altmetric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1101-1123, February.
    6. Jorge Mannana-Rodriguez & Elea Giménez-Toledo, 2018. "Specialization and multidisciplinarity of scholarly book publishers: differences between Spanish University Presses and other scholarly publishers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 19-30, January.
    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. Maja Jokić & Andrea Mervar & Stjepan Mateljan, 2019. "Comparative analysis of book citations in social science journals by Central and Eastern European authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1005-1029, September.
    9. Zhang, Chengzhi & Zhou, Qingqing, 2020. "Assessing books’ depth and breadth via multi-level mining on tables of contents," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    10. Elea Giménez-Toledo & Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez & Tim C. E. Engels & Raf Guns & Emanuel Kulczycki & Michael Ochsner & Janne Pölönen & Gunnar Sivertsen & Alesia A. Zuccala, 2019. "Taking scholarly books into account, part II: a comparison of 19 European countries in evaluation and funding," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 233-251, January.
    11. Chi, Pei-Shan, 2016. "Differing disciplinary citation concentration patterns of book and journal literature?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 814-829.
    12. Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh & A. Noorhidawati & A. Abrizah, 2019. "What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature’s books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 521-536, October.
    13. Tausch, Arno, 2018. "The Market Power of Global Scientific Publishing Companies in the Age of Globalization. An Analysis Based on the OCLC Worldcat," MPRA Paper 87442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Mingkun Wei & Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli, 2020. "Evaluating the relationship between the academic and social impact of open access books based on citation behaviors and social media attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2401-2420, December.
    15. Cristina López-Duarte & Marta M. Vidal-Suárez & Belén González-Díaz, 2019. "Cross-national distance and international business: an analysis of the most influential recent models," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 173-208, October.
    16. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    17. Frederik T. Verleysen & Tim C. E. Engels, 2014. "Internationalization of peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed book publications in the Social Sciences and Humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1431-1444, November.
    18. Thelwall, Mike & Sud, Pardeep, 2014. "No citation advantage for monograph-based collaborations?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 276-283.
    19. Yongjun Zhu & Erjia Yan & Silvio Peroni & Chao Che, 2020. "Nine million book items and eleven million citations: a study of book-based scholarly communication using OpenCitations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1097-1112, February.
    20. Qingqing Zhou & Chengzhi Zhang & Star X. Zhao & Bikun Chen, 2016. "Measuring book impact based on the multi-granularity online review mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1435-1455, June.

    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:111:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2312-3. 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.