Reviewing, indicating, and counting books for modern research evaluation systems

In this chapter, we focus on the specialists who have helped to improve the conditions for book assessments in research evaluation exercises, with empirically based data and insights supporting their greater integration. Our review highlights the research carried out by four types of expert communities, referred to as the monitors, the subject classifiers, the indexers and the indicator constructionists. Many challenges lie ahead for scholars affiliated with these communities, particularly the latter three. By acknowledging their unique, yet interrelated roles, we show where the greatest potential is for both quantitative and qualitative indicator advancements in book-inclusive evaluation systems.Comment: Forthcoming in Glanzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch U., Thelwall, M. (2018). Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer Some corrections made in subsection 'Publisher prestige or quality

Mapping Diversity of Publication Patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities: An Approach Making Use of Fuzzy Cluster Analysis

&lt;b&gt;Purpose:&lt;/b&gt; To present a method for systematically mapping diversity of publication patterns at the author level in the social sciences and humanities in terms of publication type, publication language and co-authorship.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Design/methodology/approach:&lt;/b&gt; In a follow-up to the hard partitioning clustering by Verleysen and Weeren in 2016, we now propose the complementary use of fuzzy cluster analysis, making use of a membership coefficient to study gradual differences between publication styles among authors within a scholarly discipline. The analysis of the probability density function of the membership coefficient allows to assess the distribution of publication styles within and between disciplines.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Findings:&lt;/b&gt; As an illustration we analyze 1,828 productive authors affiliated in Flanders, Belgium. Whereas a hard partitioning previously identified two broad publication styles, an international one vs. a domestic one, fuzzy analysis now shows gradual differences among authors. Internal diversity also varies across disciplines and can be explained by researchers&#39; specialization and dissemination strategies.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Research limitations:&lt;/b&gt; The dataset used is limited to one country for the years 2000-2011; a cognitive classification of authors may yield a different result from the affiliation-based classification used here.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Practical implications:&lt;/b&gt; Our method is applicable to other bibliometric and research evaluation contexts, especially for the social sciences and humanities in non-Anglophone countries.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Originality/value:&lt;/b&gt; The method proposed is a novel application of cluster analysis to the field of bibliometrics. Applied to publication patterns at the author level in the social sciences and humanities, for the first time it systematically documents intra-disciplinary diversity.&lt;b&gt;Purpose:&lt;/b&gt; To present a method for systematically mapping diversity of publication patterns at the author level in the social sciences and humanities in terms of publication type, publication language and co-authorship.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Design/methodology/approach:&lt;/b&gt; In a follow-up to the hard partitioning clustering by Verleysen and Weeren in 2016, we now propose the complementary use of fuzzy cluster analysis, making use of a membership coefficient to study gradual differences between publication styles among authors within a scholarly discipline. The analysis of the probability density function of the membership coefficient allows to assess the distribution of publication styles within and between disciplines.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Findings:&lt;/b&gt; As an illustration we analyze 1,828 productive authors affiliated in Flanders, Belgium. Whereas a hard partitioning previously identified two broad publication styles, an international one vs. a domestic one, fuzzy analysis now shows gradual differences among authors. Internal diversity also varies across disciplines and can be explained by researchers&#39; specialization and dissemination strategies.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Research limitations:&lt;/b&gt; The dataset used is limited to one country for the years 2000-2011; a cognitive classification of authors may yield a different result from the affiliation-based classification used here.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Practical implications:&lt;/b&gt; Our method is applicable to other bibliometric and research evaluation contexts, especially for the social sciences and humanities in non-Anglophone countries.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Originality/value:&lt;/b&gt; The method proposed is a novel application of cluster analysis to the field of bibliometrics. Applied to publication patterns at the author level in the social sciences and humanities, for the first time it systematically documents intra-disciplinary diversity.</span

Science and technology in Africa : a bibliometric and patent analysis

Mestrado Economia e Gestão de Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoIt is known that Africa's R&D has been fragile. However, the analysis of bibliometric data indicates that Africa has relative distinguish behaviours on publication (2,51% of world output in 2011) and patent production (0,25% of total PCT Applications in 2011). Regarding research output there was a turning point around 2004, when the continent's output was yet to reach 15,000 publications annually. Since that year African publications have grown faster than the world average, with its number more than duplicating until now. These advances are overshadowed by the fact the continent’s production is still highly concentrated (South Africa and Egypt). Concerning scientific specialization, the results indicate that the overall Africa’s specialization is not too different of the world pattern with the exception of Agricultural Sciences, which are relatively more important in Africa. An important finding is that, at the nation level, higher level of specialization and English language colonial legacy seems to lead to better results on “scientific impact”. Other relevant result is that there seems to be a non-linear dynamics between publication output and patent output. The more a country publishes in WoS publications, the more it is able to transform scientific information into technological inventions. Finally, as demonstrated, in a way, by our cluster analysis, Africa is too complex to follow one set of S&T policies. Each country must evaluate what already exists and, with a realistic vision (Lundvall, 2009), develop their knowledge frontiers to respond to local circumstances and opportunities.Historicamente, a I&D em África tem sido diminuta. No entanto, a análise de dados bibliométricos indica que África tem comportamentos distintos em relação à produção científica (2,51% da produção mundial em 2011) e aos pedidos internacionais de patentes (0,25% do total em 2011). Relativamente à produção científica, houve um ponto de viragem em 2004, quando a produção total do continente não ultrapassava as 15000 publicações anuais. Desde esse ano o crescimento anual tem sido mais rápido que a média mundial. Estes avanços são ofuscados pelo facto da produção do continente ser ainda altamente concentrada (África do Sul e Egito). Quando o à especialização científica, a única área científica onde África apresenta maior diferenciação é em “Ciências Agrárias”. Um resultado importante, ao nível dos países, é que maiores níveis de especialização e a existência da língua inglesa como língua colonial, parecem levar a publicações com maior "impacto científico". Outra conclusão relevante é que parece haver uma dinâmica não-linear entre o número de publicações de um país e o número de pedidos PCT. Quanto maior o nível de publicação de um país na WoS, maior parece ser a capacidade dos agentes em transformar a informação científica em invenções tecnológicas. Finalmente, a nossa análise de clusters demonstrou, que África é muito complexa para seguir um conjunto único de políticas de C&T. Cada país deve avaliar as suas características e, com uma visão realista (Lundvall, 2009), desenvolver as suas fronteiras de conhecimento para responder às circunstâncias e oportunidades locais