Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present an empirical assessment of the weight assigned to monographs in the publication indicator of the performance-based research funding system (PRFS) in Flanders, Belgium. By relating publication weight to publication size the authors offer an alternative perspective on the production of scholars who publish monographs. This perspective on weights is linked to the aggregation level at which PRFS indicators are used: the national/regional one as opposed to the local one. In Flanders as elsewhere the publication indicator designed for funding distribution between universities has sometimes trickled down to institutions, their faculties and departments.

As an alternative indicator of scholarly production the authors propose the median number of pages of a publication type. Measuring the size of publications allows to compare the weight ratio between monographs and journal articles in the publication indicator to their size ratio in the VABB-SHW database. The authors compare two levels, one of four universities and one of 16 disciplines.

Median publication size differences between disciplines are much larger than those between universities. This indicates that an increase of monographs’ weight in the publication indicator would hardly affect funding distribution at the regional level. Disciplines with a relatively large share of monographs, however, would contribute more to the publication indicator. Hence an increase of monographs’ weight might provide a better balance between fields and between publication types.

This paper presents a thought experiment regarding the weight assigned to different publication types in the publication indicator of the Flemish PRFS: what would happen if this weight were replaced by the median number of pages of a publication type? In doing so, we highlight that such weighting schemes play an important role in finding a balance between fields of research. The sizeable differences between weight and size ratios offer a new and critical perspective on the weighting schemes currently used in PRFS, also in other countries.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 study investigates an approach to book metrics for research evaluation that takes into account the complexity of scholarly monographs. This approach is based on work sets – unique scholarly works and their within-work related bibliographic entities – for scholarly monographs in national databases for research output.

This study examines bibliographic records on scholarly monographs acquired from four European databases (VABB in Flanders, Belgium; CROSBI in Croatia; CRISTIN in Norway; COBISS in Slovenia). Following a data enrichment process using metadata from OCLC WorldCat and Amazon Goodreads, the authors identify work sets and the corresponding ISBNs. Next, on the basis of the number of ISBNs per work set and the presence in WorldCat, they design a typology of scholarly monographs: Globally visible single-expression works, Globally visible multi-expression works, Miscellaneous and Globally invisible works.

The findings show that the concept “work set” and the proposed typology can aid the identification of influential scholarly monographs in the social sciences and humanities (i.e. the Globally visible multi-expression works).

In light of the findings, the authors outline requirements for the bibliographic control of scholarly monographs in national databases for research output that facilitate the use of the approach proposed here.

The authors use insights from library and information science (LIS) to construct complexity-sensitive book metrics. In doing so, the authors, on the one hand, propose a solution to a problem in research evaluation and, on the other hand, bring to attention the need for a dialogue between LIS and neighbouring communities that work with bibliographic data.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the characteristic patterns of monographs in the humanities, social sciences and hard sciences published by Polish scholars. The study provides a comprehensive overview of the Polish book evaluation system to explain how monographs are assessed and illustrate how changes in the definitions of the types of scholarly book publications influence publication patterns.

This paper analyses bibliographic records of 42,307 monographs published by Polish scholars in the humanities and science fields from 2009 to 2016. Through a bibliometric analysis, the paper investigates the characteristic patterns of the monographs, including authorship, publication language and length, across three fields.

The present study demonstrates that changes in the definitions of scholarly book publications in Poland have significantly influenced the characteristic patterns of monographs. The analysis of the characteristic patterns across three fields reveals that the monographs are different in terms of all characteristics. In the entire period, 85.3 percent monographs were written in Polish, 10.1 percent in English, 1.4 percent in German, 1.1 percent in Russian and 2.1 percent in 39 other languages. The most significant changes are observed in authorship patterns.

This work offers empirical findings on the characteristic patterns of monographs in the humanities, social sciences and hard sciences from a non-English speaking country. It discusses a unique model of book assessment and shows certain consequences of various overly formalized procedures of evaluation. Thus, the study identifies the major challenges and implications of using highly formalized procedures for book evaluation.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to compare the lists of publishers in SPI (Spain) and the lists of VIRTA (Finland), in order to determine some of the potential uses of a merged list, such as complementing each other; and, second, to assess the effects of cross-field variability in the SPI rankings on the potential uses identified in the previous objective.

VIRTA and SPI lists were matched and compared in terms of level and number of submissions (VIRTA) and prestige (SPI).

There is a set of international publishers common to both information systems, but most publishers are nationally oriented. This type of publisher is still highly relevant for scholars. Consequently, a merge of national lists would provide useful information for all stakeholders involved in terms of grounding information for the rating of foreign, non-international publishers. Nevertheless, several issues should be considered in an eventual merging process, such as the decisions related to the use of field-specific rankings or general rankings.

If merged, ratings ought to be kept separately. Ratings of national publishers can be imputed in other systems’ evaluation process, thus making the merging process potentially useful.

This research explores obstacles and opportunities for merging scholarly publishers’ lists from an empirical perspective. It provides groundwork for future efforts toward supra-national combinations of publishers’ lists.

The purpose of this paper is to examine perceived and factual realities of open access predators and further delve into usage patterns of predatory open access journals (OAJs) by researchers and its implication on quality assurance in Library and Information Science Research. It also investigates factors promoting use of these outlets, as well as authors’ perspectives on quality control for OAJs.

The paper reviewed available literature on OAJs and the proliferation of predatory journals. It also presents author’s viewpoint on the implication of using predatory journals for Library and Information Science Research in Nigeria.

The number of predatory publishers globally has grown rapidly from 18 in 2011 to 693 in 2015, whereas standalone journals increased from 126 to 507 in 2015. Library and information science (LIS) studies were published in some of the listed predatory journals by Jeffrey Beall, and this has reduced global recognition of LIS researchers in Nigeria. Upcoming authors were easily attracted to publishing their work in predatory journals because of fast review process, prompt publishing and quest for global visibility. Checking against plagiarism, ensuring quality control, increased awareness for non-use of predatory journals were some of the recommendations given.

It is clear that if LIS educators report their research in predatory OA outlets, individual and institutional reputation will be affected which may eventually lead to low ranking status of institutions. Nigerian universities low ranking status by several indices can be traced to the nonappearance or low scholarly literature published in reputable and respected journal outlets. Scholars with less quality studies will not be invited to feature as reviewers and international panelist in reputable thematic conferences and meetings neither can they be invited as external examiners in universities abroad.

This work is very valuable in evaluating the growth of predatory journals in Library and information Science Research in Nigeria. It provides distinctive ways to evaluating OAJs and how to identify and avoid predatory journals.