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

The development of political science in Central and Eastern Europe : bibliometric perspective, 1996–2013

This research aims to develop a deeper insight into the development of political science from the bibliometric perspective by analysing peer-reviewed journal articles (n = 1117) indexed in the Scopus database and published by authors from fifteen Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries in the period 1996–2013. Results indicate that the majority of articles (84%) by CEE authors have been published in international journals and in the English language. The visibility of these articles in international journals, measured by the mean number of citations, is 5.2 per paper, while the same indicator for CEE journal articles amounts to 0.2. Authorship analysis indicates a gradual but continuous increase in co-authorships. Additionally, there are significant differences in citations between single-authored and co-authored articles, both in international and CEE journals. Co-authorship among CEE authors is present in only 1% of the analysed articles, confirming weak collaboration between political scientists in CEE countries

Measuring the Isolation of Research Topics in Philosophy

Various authors have recently argued that certain parts of academic philosophy are highly isolated from other fields of academic research. The central aim of this paper is to go beyond philosophical arguments, and empirically test whether this is indeed the case. More specifically, we investigate whether domains of Core Philosophy, like metaphysics and epistemology, are more isolated than Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Value Issues. To do this, we collected 2,369 WoS indexed papers divided into 17 Philpapers topics from these three kinds of philosophy, and used 11 indicators to measure their isolation. The results show that both Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Value Issues are less isolated than Core Philosophy. In addition, general topics in Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Value Issues tend to be more isolated than applied topics. These results suggest that the isolation of philosophy could be alleviated by shifting the priority from Core Philosophy to applied Philosophy of Science and Value Issues

Measuring the Isolation of Research Topics in Philosophy

Various authors have recently argued that certain parts of academic philosophy are highly isolated from other fields of academic research. The central aim of this paper is to go beyond philosophical arguments, and empirically test whether this is indeed the case. More specifically, we investigate whether domains of Core Philosophy, like metaphysics and epistemology, are more isolated than Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Value Issues. To do this, we collected 2,369 WoS indexed papers divided into 17 Philpapers topics from these three kinds of philosophy, and used 11 indicators to measure their isolation. The results show that both Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Value Issues are less isolated than Core Philosophy. In addition, general topics in Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Value Issues tend to be more isolated than applied topics. These results suggest that the isolation of philosophy could be alleviated by shifting the priority from Core Philosophy to applied Philosophy of Science and Value Issues