Suchergebnisse

In performance-based research funding systems evidence of peer review is often considered a requirement for publications to be included. Originating from the sciences, pre-publication peer review is very common in the publishing process, also in the social sciences and humanities. Sometimes, however, it is ambiguous whether a publication is peer-reviewed or not. In this contribution, we analyse the ambiguity in identifying a journal's or publication's peer-review status by comparing the classification of journals in Finland and Flanders, and by taking stock of Finnish authors' reporting of peer-review status of publications. We find that ambiguity in terms of peer review status is rather common, especially in the humanities. Indeed, we find differences in peer review status in about 10 per cent of all cases, both when comparing Finland and Flanders, and when comparing author-reported and centralised identification of peer-review status.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach – Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings – As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications – The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like "performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing" are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH.Originality/value – The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH. ; This work is conducted within the framework of the COST action "European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and Humanities" (ENRESSH, CA15137, enressh.eu). Tim Engels thanks the Flemish Government for its financial support to the Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM).

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland (https://www.gov.pl/nauka/) within the DIALOG Programme: the project title 'Research into Excellence Patterns in Science and Art'. Tim Engels and Raf Guns thank the Flemish government for its funding of the Center for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. ; This article discusses the open-identity label, i.e., the practice of disclosing reviewers' names in published scholarly books, a common practice in Central and Eastern European countries. This study's objective is to verify whether the open-identity label is a type of peer-review label (like those used in Finland and Flanders, i.e., the Flemish part of Belgium), and as such, whether it can be used as a delineation criterion in various systems used to evaluate scholarly publications. We have conducted a two-phase sequential explanatory study. In the first phase, interviews with 20 of the 40 largest Polish publishers of scholarly books were conducted to investigate how Polish publishers control peer reviews and whether the open-identity label can be used to identify peer-reviewed books. In the other phase, two questionnaires were used to analyze perceptions of peer-review and open-identity labelling among authors (n = 600) and reviewers (n = 875) of books published by these 20 publishers. Integrated results allowed us to verify publishers' claims concerning their peer-review practices. Our findings reveal that publishers actually control peer reviews by providing assessment criteria to reviewers and sending reviews to authors. Publishers rarely ask for permission to disclose reviewers' names, but it is obvious to reviewers that this practice of disclosing names is part of peer reviewing. This study also shows that only the names of reviewers who accepted manuscripts for publication are disclosed. Thus, most importantly, our analysis shows that the open-identity label that Polish publishers use is a type of peer-review label like those used in Flanders and Finland, and as such, it can be used to identify peer-reviewed scholarly books.

Acknowledgement: This article is based on work from COST Action 15137 European Network for Research Evaluation in the SSH (ENRESSH) and supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). In this paper, we pursue two main objectives. First, we review the relevant literature and present it according to a theoretical framework that combines structural perspectives and consideration for individual agency, to allow us a better understanding of the role played by senior academics in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in the implementation of the different policies that concern the production, the dissemination and the evaluation of research, including impact related policies. Indeed the academics' negotiating power of the impact agenda – as it is currently promoted by European policy makers (see e.g. European Commission 2018) and encompasses the impact on policy making, economy as well as the environment and society – cannot be understood in isolation of their perception and attitudes towards the broader political changes that affect the practice of academic research. Secondly we discuss some preliminary results from the interviews we have conducted in the context of the COST ENRESSH action with 16 European senior sociologists active in eight European countries, focusing here on their perceptions and attitudes towards the impact agenda. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published

This article is based on work from COST Action 15137 European Network for Research Evaluation in the SSH (ENRESSH) and supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). ; In this paper, we pursue two main objectives. First, we review the relevant literature and present it according to a theoretical framework that combines structural perspectives and consideration for individual agency, to allow us a better understanding of the role played by senior academics in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in the implementation of the different policies that concern the production, the dissemination and the evaluation of research, including impact related policies. Indeed the academics' negotiating power of the impact agenda – as it is currently promoted by European policy makers (see e.g. European Commission 2018) and encompasses the impact on policy making, economy as well as the environment and society – cannot be understood in isolation of their perception and attitudes towards the broader political changes that affect the practice of academic research. Secondly we discuss some preliminary results from the interviews we have conducted in the context of the COST ENRESSH action with 16 European senior sociologists active in eight European countries, focusing here on their perceptions and attitudes towards the impact agenda.

The present study is an extended version of an article presented at the 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Wuhan (China), 16 - 20 October 2017). The authors are indebted to COST Action CA1537 "European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and the Humanities" for supporting this work. Kasper Bruun is employed in the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science: positions and views expressed in the paper are solely on the account of the author. ; This study investigates patterns in the language and type of social sciences and humanities (SSH) publications in non-English speaking European countries to demonstrate that such patterns are related not only to discipline but also to each country's cultural and historic heritage. We investigate publication patterns that occur across SSH publications of the whole of the SSH and of economics and business, law, and philosophy and theology publications in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Norway, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. We use data from 74,022 peer-reviewed publications from 2014 registered in at least one of the eight countries' national databases and for 272,376 peer-reviewed publications from the period of 2011–2014 registered in at least one of the seven countries' national databases (for all countries except Slovakia). Our findings show that publication patterns differ both between fields (e.g. patterns in law differ from those in economics and business in the same way in Flanders and Finland) and within fields (e.g. patterns in law in the Czech Republic differ from patterns in law in Finland). We observe that the publication patterns are stable and quite similar in West European and Nordic countries, whereas in Central and Eastern European countries the publication patterns demonstrate considerable changes. Nevertheless, in all countries, the share of articles and the share of publications in English is on the rise. We conclude with recommendations for science policy and highlight that internationalization policies in non-English speaking countries should consider various starting points and cultural heritages in different countries. ; The work of Emanuel Kulczycki was supported by the National Programme for the Development of Humanities in Poland [grant number 0057/NPHR3/H11/82/2014]. Tim Engels and Raf Guns thank the Flemish Government for its funding of the VABB through the Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM).

We investigate the state of multilingualism across the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using a comprehensive data set of research outputs from seven European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Flanders [Belgium], Norway, Poland, and Slovenia). Although English tends to be the dominant language of science, SSH researchers often produce culturally and societally relevant work in their local languages. We collected and analyzed a set of 164,218 peer‐reviewed journal articles (produced by 51,063 researchers from 2013 to 2015) and found that multilingualism is prevalent despite geographical location and field. Among the researchers who published at least three journal articles during this time period, over one‐third from the various countries had written their work in at least two languages. The highest share of researchers who published in only one language were from Flanders (80.9%), whereas the lowest shares were from Slovenia (57.2%) and Poland (59.3%). Our findings show that multilingual publishing is an ongoing practice in many SSH research fields regardless of geographical location, political situation, and/or historical heritage. Here we argue that research is international, but multilingual publishing keeps locally relevant research alive with the added potential for creating impact. ; publishedVersion

Funding information: National Science Centre in Poland, Grant/Award Number: UMO‐2017/26/E/HS2/00019; European Cooperation in Science and Technology, Grant/Award Number: CA15137; Slovenian Research Agency, Grant/Award Number: P2‐0210; Flemish Government ; We investigate the state of multilingualism across the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using a comprehensive data set of research outputs from seven European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Flanders [Belgium], Norway, Poland, and Slovenia). Although English tends to be the dominant language of science, SSH researchers often produce culturally and societally relevant work in their local languages. We collected and analyzed a set of 164,218 peer‐reviewed journal articles (produced by 51,063 researchers from 2013 to 2015) and found that multilingualism is prevalent despite geographical location and field. Among the researchers who published at least three journal articles during this time period, over one‐third from the various countries had written their work in at least two languages. The highest share of researchers who published in only one language were from Flanders (80.9%), whereas the lowest shares were from Slovenia (57.2%) and Poland (59.3%). Our findings show that multilingual publishing is an ongoing practice in many SSH research fields regardless of geographical location, political situation, and/or historical heritage. Here we argue that research is international, but multilingual publishing keeps locally relevant research alive with the added potential for creating impact.

This article is based on work from COST Action 15137 European Network for Research Evaluation in the SSH (ENRESSH) and supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). We thank all who have contributed to the two surveys on databases, especially Kasper Bruun, Gennady Eremenko, Viktor Glukhov, Marit Henningsen, Hanna-Mari Puuska, Svetlana Shabanova, Davor Šoštarič, and Mimi Urbanc. In the same way, we thank the reviewers for their valuable feedback. ; This article provides an overview of national bibliographic databases that include data on research output within social sciences and humanities (SSH) in Europe. We focus on the comprehensiveness of the database content. Compared to the data from commercial databases such as Web of Science and Scopus, data from national bibliographic databases (e.g. Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the SSH (VABB-SHW) in Belgium, Current Research Information System in Norway (CRISTIN)) are more comprehensive and may, therefore, be better fit for bibliometric analyses. Acknowledging this, several countries within Europe maintain national bibliographic databases; detailed and comparative information about their content, however, has been limited. In autumn 2016, we launched a survey to acquire an overview of national bibliographic databases for SSH in Europe and Israel. Surveying 41 countries (responses received from 39 countries), we identified 21 national bibliographic databases for SSH. Further, we acquired a more detailed description of 13 databases, with a focus on their comprehensiveness. Findings indicate that even though the content of national bibliographic databases is diverse, it is possible to delineate a subset that is similar across databases. At the same time, it is apparent that differences in national bibliographic databases are often bound to differences in country-specific arrangements. Considering this, we highlight implications to bibliometric analyses based on data from national bibliographic databases and outline several aspects that may be taken into account in the development of existing national bibliographic databases for SSH or the design of new ones. ; This work was supported by funding provided by the Flemish government to L.S., R.G., T.E., through the Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM) and the COST Action 15137 ENRESSH (through a grant for a short-term scientific mission) to L.S.