Multilingual publishing in the social sciences and humanities: A seven‐country European study

Kulczycki, Emanuel; Guns, Raf; Pölönen, Janne; Engels, Tim; Rozkosz, Ewa A.; Zuccala, Alesia A.; Bruun, Kasper; Eskola, Olli; Starčič, Andreja Istenic; Petr, Michal; Sivertsen, Gunnar

doi:10.1002/asi.24336

Cited by 64 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, if scholars are given an opportunity to interact with one another via the system, and obtain recommendations about their publishing experiences (i.e., like a publisher Trip Advisor), this could help them to determine which press is best for their own publishing strategy. Recommendations would also allow authors to make more "organic" choices, particularly if they are writing about subjects pertaining to regional or national concerns (Kulczycki, Guns et al, 2020).…”

Section: Findings Relevant To the Proposed Publisher Registrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance-based publisher ratings and the visibility/impact of books: Small fish in a big pond, or big fish in a small pond?

Zuccala

Pölönen

Guns

et al. 2021

Quantitative Science Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares publisher ratings to the visibility and impact of individual books, based on a 2017 dataset from three Nordic PRFS systems (Denmark, Norway, and Finland). Although there are Journal Impact Factors (JIFs) for journals, there is no similar indicator for book publishers. National publisher lists are used instead to account for the general 'quality' of books, leading to institutional rewards. But, just as the JIF is not recommended as proxy for the ‘citedness’ of a paper, a publisher rating is also not recommended as proxy for the impact of an individual book. We introduce a small fish in a big pond versus big fish in a small pond metaphor, where a ‘fish’ is a book and ‘the pond’ represents its publishing house. We investigate how books fit on this metaphorical fish and pond continuum, using WorldCat holdings (visibility) and Google scholar citations (impact), and test other variables to determine their predictive value with respect to these two indicators. Our statistics show that publisher levels do not have predictive value, when other variables are held constant. This has implications for PRFSs and book evaluations in general, as well as ongoing developments related to a newly proposed international publisher registry.

show abstract

Section: Findings Relevant To the Proposed Publisher Registrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance-based publisher ratings and the visibility/impact of books: Small fish in a big pond, or big fish in a small pond?

Zuccala

Pölönen

Guns

et al. 2021

Quantitative Science Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the national publication databases have not yet reached their full potential for cross-country comparisons. A few studies, in which national publication data from several European countries have been integrated manually, have demonstrated the great potential of these data sources for improved understanding, for example, of publication patterns and multilingualism in scholarly communication [18][19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of national publication databases – towards a high-quality and comprehensive information base on scholarly publications in Europe

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need for a comprehensive infrastructure for scholarly publication information has been on the EU’s agenda for a long time. Also, the European Commission’s open science policy highlights the necessity of a good information base to follow up open access publishing across Europe. However, an all-inclusive information infrastructure on research publications is still missing. During the past 10 years, European countries have invested significantly in national research information infrastructures. Now, at least 20 European countries have a national database for research publication metadata. The strength of these databases lies in their comprehensiveness and quality assurance since they often have a mandatory nature. They are, however, neither yet integrated nor widely used for cross- country comparisons. To this end, a proof of concept of a European publication infrastructure was carried out in the framework of ENRESSH (www.enressh.eu). The ENRESSH-VIRTA-PoC integrated publication data from four countries and the concept was built on the strengths of the Finnish national VIRTA system. This paper highlights the results from the PoC and outlines future steps towards the integration of national publication databases in Europe.

show abstract

“…Studies comparing the international database coverage with comprehensive national publication data drawn from the institutional research information systems show that law is among the least covered fields (Kulczycki et al, 2018). This is because in law, articles in books and monographs, as well as national languages, play an important role in the dissemination of research results (Kulczycki et al, 2020;Pichonnaz, 2014;van Leeuwen, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Historical Bibliometrics Using Google Scholar: The Case of Roman Law, 1727–2016

Pölönen

Hammarfelt

2020

Journal of Data and Information Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate the historical and linguistic coverage of Google Scholar, using publications in the field of Roman law as an example.Design/methodology/approachTo create a dataset of Roman law publications, we retrieved a total of 21,300 records of publications, published between years 1500 and 2016, with title including words denoting “Roman law” in English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish.FindingsWe were able to find publications dating back to 1727. The largest number of publications and authors date to the late 19th century, and this peak might be explained by the role of Roman law in French legal education at the time. Furthermore, we found exceptionally skewed concentration of publications to authors, as well as of citations to publications. We speculate that this could be explained by the long time-frame of the study, and the importance of classic works.Research limitationMajor limitations, and potential future work, relate to data quality, and cleaning, disambiguation of publications and authors, as well as comparing coverage with other data sources.Practical implicationsWe find Google Scholar to be a promising data source for historical bibliometrics. This approach may help bridge the gap between bibliometrics and the “digital humanities”.Originality/valueEarlier studies have focused mainly on Google Scholar's coverage of publications and citations in general, or in specific fields. The historical coverage has, however, received less attention.

show abstract

Multilingual publishing in the social sciences and humanities: A seven‐country European study

Abstract: 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

Cited by 64 publications

References 29 publications

Performance-based publisher ratings and the visibility/impact of books: Small fish in a big pond, or big fish in a small pond?

Performance-based publisher ratings and the visibility/impact of books: Small fish in a big pond, or big fish in a small pond?

Integration of national publication databases – towards a high-quality and comprehensive information base on scholarly publications in Europe

Historical Bibliometrics Using Google Scholar: The Case of Roman Law, 1727–2016

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About