Research Productivity in Academia: A Comparative Study of the Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities

Abstract

Though a significant number of studies of scholarly productivity have accumulated in the past decade, the majority have focused on limited samples of specialists in one or only a few scientific disciplines, making it difficult to generalize findings across dissimilar academic disciplines. This paper tests a model incorporating both academic and nonacademic factors as determinants of productivity with samples of physical and biological scientists, social scientists, and humanists taken from the 1972-73 American Council on Education survey of J'aculty at U.S. institutions of higher learning. We find considerable variation in the process determining productivity both across the broad disciplinary categories as well as within categories when article and book productivity are compared. We also examine the relative influence of the disciplinary context and attributes of scholars on productivity. Our evidence suggests that the decisive edge that physical and biological scientists enjoy over social scientists and humanists in article productivity is largely the result of the nature of work or a favorable disciplinary milieu, while the lower rate of productivity among humanists is more heavily determined by their attributes.

Wanner, R. A., Lewis, L. S., & Gregorio, D. I. (1981). Research productivity in academia: A comparative study of the sciences, social sciences and humanities. Sociology of Education, 238-253.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2112566?seq=1

Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A review

Abstract

This paper addresses research performance monitoring of the social sciences and the humanities using citation analysis. Main differences in publication and citation behavior between the (basic) sciences and the social sciences and humanities are outlined. Limitations of the (S)SCI and A&HCI for monitoring research performance are considered. For research performance monitoring in many social sciences and humanities, the methods used in science need to be extended. A broader range of both publications (including non-ISI journals and monographs) and citation indicators (including non-ISI reference citation values) is needed. Three options for bibliometric monitoring are discussed.

Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81-100.

https://akjournals.com/view/journals/11192/66/1/article-p81.xml

Age and scientific productivity. Differences between fields of learning

Abstract

This article analyzes the relationship between age and scientific productivity at Norwegian universities. Cross-sectional data indicate that publishing activity reaches a peak in the 45–49 year old age group and declines by 30 per cent among researchers over 60 years old. Large differences exist, however, between fields of learning. In the social sciences productivity remains more or less at the same level in all age groups. In the humanities publishing activity declines in the 55–59 year old age group, but it reaches a new peak in the group 60 years old and over. Productivity declines in the medical sciences among faculty members who are older than 55, while in the natural sciences, productivity continually decreases with increasing age.

This article suggests that the differences between the various fields of learning arise from corresponding differences in the development of scientific disciplines. In fields where the production of new knowledge is fast and where new scientific methods and equipment are continuously introduced, researchers may have problems coping and thus become obsolescent. In fields where knowledge production occurs at a slower pace, e.g. the social sciences and the humanities, faculty may be productive throughout their careers. This explanation gains further support when looking at various natural and medical science disciplines. Older faculty members in physics are less productive than older researchers in mathematics, and older scientists in biomedicine are less productive than their colleagues of the same age in social medicine.

Kyvik, S. (1990). Age and scientific productivity. Differences between fields of learning. Higher Education, 19(1), 37-55.

Article Age and scientific productivity. Differences between fields ...

Analysis of Scientific Productivity in Croatia according to the Science Citation Index, the Social Science Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index for the Period 1980-1995

Abstract

Aim. A total of 8, 825 articles, notes, and letters published by scientists affiliated with research institutions within the Republic of Croatia, in journals covered by the Science Citation Index (SCI), the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), or the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), in the years 1980 - 1996, was analyzed considering the number of publications and cumulative partial authorship per individual scientist and research institution. Method. To account for differences in the size of the readership for a particular journal, its impact factor was standardized by multiplying with the ratio of the average numbers of quotations per article for the respective scientific subfield and all journals covered by the SCI. Results. Out of 8, 994 Croatian scientists, the productivity of 792 was at or above the world average, considering the number of papers and/or cumulative partial authorship. Based on average productivity and standardized impact factors for their scientific subfields, the most successful 2.5% (228 individuals) of the scientists affiliated with Croatian institutions were identified. Almost half of the 792 world class scientists were active in the main fields of Chemistry and Physics, even though chemists and physicists comprise a mere 10% of all the scientists in the country. Of those 792 scientists, 34% were affiliated with the Ruđer Bošković Institute and about 10% each with the Faculty of Natural Sciences & Mathematics and with the School of Medicine of the University of Zagreb. Conclusion. There are several centers of scientific exellence in the Republic of Croatia: the Institute of Physics, the Ruđer Bošković Institute, the Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, and the Institute of Medical Research and Occupational Medicine, all with a scientific productivity above the world average. Chemists and physicists published more than 45% of the Croatian scientific output, and have a scientific productivity about 50% above the world average. Almost half of the Croatian scientists, did not publish any paper in the world-relevant scientific literature, during the 1980-1995 period. Croatian science is chronically underfunded.

Klaić, B. (1997). Analysis of Scientific Productivity in Croatia according to the Science Citation Index, the Social Science Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index for the Period 1980-1995. Croatian Medical Journal, 38(2), 88-98.

https://www.bib.irb.hr/1899?rad=1899

ANALYZING RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY OF HUMANITIES FACULTY MEMBERS IN UNIVERSITIES OF AHVAZ, SOUTHWEST OF IRAN

Article ANALYZING RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY OF HUMANITIES FACULTY MEMBER...

An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity

Abstract

Previous studies on collaborative research emphasize industry-university collaboration conducted in a subset of academic disciplines associated with applied engineering. These studies focus on motivations, mechanisms, financial costs and financial benefits of collaborative research while paying little attention to the impact of collaborative research on academic productivity. The purpose of this paper is to attempt to compensate for some of these shortcomings. First, we present a survey which includes responses from academic researchers of all the scientific disciplines. Second, we take into account and compare the collaborative relationships between university researchers, between university researchers and industry, and between university researchers and other institutions, especially government agencies, local governments and organized interest groups. And third, we assess the impact of these collaborative activities on the academic productivity of the university researchers.

The results of this paper show that collaboration, whether it be undertaken with universities, industries or institutions, may indeed increase researchers' productivity. We find this to be true whether or not such relationships begin early in a researcher's career. We also find this to be true whether or not the collaborators have an intellectual symmetry. The effect of collaboration on productivity varies according to both the scientists' geographical closeness to their partners and on their field of research. It was found that collaboration between researchers and industry had significantly more impact on productivity than collaborations between researchers and their peers or researchers and other institutions. Scientists in humanities were found to produce less materials in collaboration than scientists in other fields. And, scientists involved in collaboration aimed mostly at producing patented and unpatented products, scientific instruments, software and artistic production were also found to produce less.

In sum, given that collaboration contributes to the increase of scientific productivity, government decision makers and university administrators ought to encourage researchers to forge collaborative relationships.

Landry, R., Traore, N., & Godin, B. (1996). An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity. Higher education, 32(3), 283-301.

Article An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on ac...

Bibliometric research evaluations, Web of Science and the Social Sciences and Humanities: a problematic relationship?

Abstract

This paper presents results from a study on two main issues in many bibliometric studies, namely language of publications and coverage issues. While these two phenomena are hardly considered as probelmatic in most bibliometric analyses in the life sciences, the natural sciences and biomedicine, these two topics do play a role while discussing the application of bibliometrics in the assessment of research and scholarly activity in the social sciences, humanities, and law. From a wider international perspective, we will further focus on German research performance in the social sciences, humanities, and law, over a period of nearly 30 years how coverage issues and language of publication have influenced scholarly activity and the international visibility of research output in these domains when written in German. Similar studies in other European languages will show the same pattern: given the current coverage of the well-known bibliometric databases and  an increasing focus of English as Lingua France of modern day scholarly activity, the current bibliometric tools are insufficient to support the actual research assessment of scholars in the social sciences, humanities, and law. This asks for a broader focus on a wider variety of publication types, which are not always intended for a purely academic audience.

Van Leeuwen, T. (2013). Bibliometric research evaluations, Web of Science and the Social Sciences and Humanities: a problematic relationship?. Bibliometrie-Praxis und Forschung, 2.

Article Bibliometric research evaluations, Web of Science and the So...

An open database of productivity in Vietnam's social sciences and humanities for public use

Abstract

This study presents a description of an open database on scientific output of Vietnamese researchers in social sciences and humanities, one that corrects for the shortcomings in current research publication databases such as data duplication, slow update, and a substantial cost of doing science. Here, using scientists’ self-reports, open online sources and cross-checking with Scopus database, we introduce a manual system and its semi-automated version of the database on the profiles of 657 Vietnamese researchers in social sciences and humanities who have published in Scopus-indexed journals from 2008 to 2018. The final system also records 973 foreign co-authors, 1,289 papers, and 789 affiliations. The data collection method, highly applicable for other sources, could be replicated in other developing countries while its content be used in cross-section, multivariate, and network data analyses. The open database is expected to help Vietnam revamp its research capacity and meet the public demand for greater transparency in science management.

Vuong, Q. H., La, V. P., Vuong, T. T., Ho, M. T., Nguyen, H. K. T., Nguyen, V. H., ... & Ho, M. T. (2018). An open database of productivity in Vietnam's social sciences and humanities for public use. Scientific data, 5, 180188.

https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018188.pdf

Towards Research Performance in the Humanities

Abstract

THISPAPER DESCRIBES A general methodology for developing bibliometric performance indicators. Such a description provides a framework or paradigm for application-oriented research in the field of evaluative quantitative science and technology studies, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. It is based on our study of scholarly output in the field of Law at the four major universities in Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. The study illustrates that bibliometrics is much more than conducting citation analyses based on the indexes produced by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), since citation data do not play a role in the study. Interaction with scholars in the fields under consideration and openness in the presentation of the quantitative outcomes are the basic features of the methodology. Bibliometrics should be used as an instrument to create a mirror. While not a direct reflection, this study provides a thorough analysis of how scholars in the humanities and social sciences structure their activities and their research output. This structure can be examined empirically from the point of view of its consistency and the degree of consensus among scholars. Relevant issues can be raised that are worth considering in more detail in followup studies, and conclusions from our empirical materials may illuminate such issues. We argue that the principal aim of the development and application of bibliometric indicators is to stimulate a debate among scholars in the field under investigation on the nature of scholarly quality, its principal dimensions, and operationalizations. This aim provides a criterion of “productivity” of the development process. We further contend that librarians are not infrequently requested to provide assistance in collecting data related to research performance assessments, and that the methodology described in the paper aims at offering a general framework for such activities, and can be used by librarians as a line of action whenever they become involved.

Moed, H. F., Luwel, M., & Nederhof, A. J. (2002). Towards research performance in the humanities.

https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/8415/librarytrendsv50i3m_opt.pdf?sequence=1

Why with bibliometrics the Humanities does not need to be the weakest link Indicators for research evaluation based on citations, library holdings, and productivity measures

Abstract

In this study an attempt is made to establish new bibliometric indicators for the assessment of research in the Humanities. Data from a Dutch Faculty of Humanities was used to provide the investigation a sound empirical basis. For several reasons (particularly related to coverage) the standard citation indicators, developed for the sciences, are unsatisfactory. Target expanded citation analysis and the use of oeuvre (lifetime) citation data, as well as the addition of library holdings and productivity indicators enable a more representative and fair assessment. Given the skew distribution of population data, individual rankings can best be determined based on log transformed data. For group rankings this is less urgent because of the central limit theorem. Lifetime citation data is corrected for professional age by means of exponential regression.

Linmans, A. (2010). Why with bibliometrics the humanities does not need to be the weakest link: Indicators for research evaluation based on citations, library holdings, and productivity measures. Scientometrics, 83(2), 337-354.

https://akjournals.com/view/journals/11192/83/2/article-p337.xml

A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research

Abstract

Recently, the need to contribute to the evaluation of the scientific, social, and political impact of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research has become a demand of policy makers and society. The international scientific community has made significant advances that have transformed the impact of evaluation landscape. This article reviews the existing scientific knowledge on evaluation tools and techniques that are applied to assess the scientific impact of SSH research; the changing structure of social and political impacts of SSH research is investigated based on an overarching research question: to what extent do scholars attempt to apply methods, instruments, and approaches that take into account the distinctive features of SSH? The review also includes examples of European Union (EU) projects that demonstrate these impacts. This article culminates in a discussion of the development of the assessment of different impacts and identifies limitations, and areas and topics to explore in the future.

Reale, E., Avramov, D., Canhial, K., Donovan, C., Flecha, R., Holm, P., ... & Primeri, E. (2018). A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 298-308.

https://academic.oup.com/rev/article/27/4/298/3978693

Google book search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%–5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI‐indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book‐cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book‐oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Google book search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1537-1549.

Article Google Book Search: Citation Analysis for Social Science and...