Has the study of philosophy at Dutch universities changed under economic and political pressures?

From 1980 until 1985, the Dutch Faculties of Philosophy went through a period of transition. First, in 1982 the national government introduced a new system of financing research at the universities. This was essentially based on the natural sciences and did not match philosophers' work organization. In 1983 a drastic reduction in the budget for philosophy was proposed within the framework of a policy of introducing savings by distributing tasks among the universities. Recently, a visiting committee reported on the weak and strong areas of Dutch philosophy and proposed a policy to strengthen Dutch philosophy. This study explores the effects of the institutional reorganizations on the study of philosophy at the faculties, using scientometric methods. In addition to presenting empirical results, some methodological questions concerning the application of scientometric methods to a field of the humanities will be discussed. The number of publications went up as funding was cut back and different subfields made different kinds of changes in orientation. The results show the relevance of publication-based data in research evaluation

Croatian social scientists’ productivity and a bibliometric study of sociologists’ output

According to (pseudo)longitudinal empirical studies, the publication productivity of Croatian social scientists has been following the main global trends, especially the increase in co-authored and international/foreign publications. However, it shows more similarities to the social science output of other post-socialist countries than to the techno-scientifically developed European regions. The most recent bibliometric study of sociologists’ publication productivity offers a more detailed picture of social science publication practices, as well as a specific disciplinary culture. Books form an essential part of sociological and SS&H output and thus they should also be included in any system of research productivity monitoring and evaluation. Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar (GS) bibliographical and citation data bases differ in covering sociological publications (especially books), which results in considerably different indicators of the quantity and visibility of published output. Empirical typology of visibility of sociologists’ publications detects the difference between article and book visibility, as well as local and international visibility combined with WoS and GS coverage. The predictors of visibility types suggest that increasing the impact of Croatian sociological research should be based on stimulating publication by sociologists in both international books and journals. (IN CROATIAN: Prema (pseudo)longitudinalnim empirijskim studijama, znanstvena produktivnost hrvatskih društvoznanstvenika prati glavne globalne trendove, posebno porast koautorskih i međunarodnih/stranih publikacija. No, ona pokazuje više sličnosti s autputom društvenih znanosti drugih postsocijalističkih država nego sa znanstveno-tehnološki razvijenim evropskim regijama. Najnovije bibliometrijsko istraživanje sociološke znanstvene produktivnosti nudi detaljniju sliku objavljivačkih praksi društvenih znanosti, kao i sliku jedne specifične disciplinarne kulture. Knjige čine esencijalni dio sociološke i društveno-humanističke produkcije, te bi stoga trebale biti uključene u svaki sustav praćenja i vrednovanja znanstvene produktivnosti. Web of Science (WoS) i Google Scholar (GS) baze razlikuju se u obuhvatu socioloških publikacija (posebno knjiga) što rezultira značajno različitim pokazateljima brojnosti i vidljivosti objavljene produkcije. Empirijska tipologija vidljivosti socioloških publikacija otkriva razliku između odjeka članaka i knjiga, kao i lokalne i međunarodne vidljivosti u kombinaciji s WoS i GS obuhvatom. Prediktori tipova vidljivosti sugeriraju da bi povećanje odjeka hrvatskih socioloških istraživanja trebalo temeljiti na poticanju sociologa na objavljivanje u inozemnim knjigama i časopisima.

Evaluating academic research in Germany: patterns and policies

In this country study of Germany the patterns and policies of academic research as well as the evaluation of academic research are analyzed, through applying the following approach: first of all, a bibliometric survey is carried out that investigates the publication output and publication efficiency of Germany’s academic research within international journals; we further investigate whether the results of a bibliometric survey appear compatible with the performance of other indicators. Secondly, discourse and policies of the evaluation of Germany’s university research are investigated by addressing issues such as: the current situation; the structural and cultural constraints against evaluations; the general reasons why evaluations of university research will play an increasingly important role in the future; and an overview of specific evaluation initiatives. Thirdly and finally, also the discourse and policies of the evaluation of Germany’s university-related research are examined. [author's abstract

Barriers Affecting Contribution of Developing Countries Social Scientists in ISI Indexed Journals

The decades leading to the third millennium was marked with concerted efforts by governments to raise their knowledge generation and contribution profile in the community of nations. Thus, all kinds of financial and promotional incentives have been offered to academics and researchers to publish papers in international journals, particularly ISI journals. It is argued that quantity and quality of articles published in ISI journals is an indication of scientific capabilities of a country and a yardstick for assessing its development. This research study aims to identify barriers that academics face in publishing papers in ISI social/humanity science journals. A questionnaire based on extensive literature review and a series of unstructured interviews was developed and tested. A stratified sampling method was used to collect data from academics of four social/humanity science faculties of a provincial university in the northwest of Iran. The findings revealed that respondent’s perceived lack of proficiency in a foreign language, poor information technology infrastructure and inadequate access to international scientific databases and uncontrollable factors related to the nature of social science disciplines and political climate as the major barriers that prevent or de-motivate them to publish in ISI journals. The research findings were discussed and concluded, and recommendations were made to reduce or remove barriers to publishing in ISI journals

Practice and Fit in the Allocation of the Resource of Faculty Time: A Study of Current and Preferred Scholarly Practice of the Faculties of Ten Theological Schools Affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (USA)

Faculties, deans, and trustees of theological schools affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (USA) were surveyed to determine current faculty practice; the practice preferred by faculty, deans. and trustees; the fit between current and preferred practice; and faculty practice and faculty preference difference according to categorical variables such as gender, race, and rank. Seven variables defined faculty practice: workweek in hours, instruction, scholarship, service, advising, governance, and other. Scholarship was subdivided into three categories adapting Ernest Boyer’s multi-dimensional definition of scholarship: orginitive, applied, and teaching. Fit was defined in two ways: statistical fit and practical fit. The reported workweek was comparable to that reported by faculties at other types of universities and colleges. The time theological faculties reported spending on teaching exceeded only that of research university faculty. The theological faculties reported spending more time on scholarship than liberal arts college and comprehensive university faculties, but less than doctoral and research faculties. Theological faculties reported spending significantly more time on service than faculty at other types of institutions. While statistical differences were found between current practice and the preferences of deans and trustees, practical differences were negligible. A statistical and practical difference was found between the preferences of faculty and deans for governance activities and between faculty and trustee preferences for the categories of instruction and scholarship. Considered by categorical variables, preferred practice of faculty varied most by faculty teaching discipline. Implications of the findings for planning and assessment in theological schools were discussed

Do rankings reflect research quality?

Publication and citation rankings have become major indicators of the scientific worth of universities and determine to a large extent the career of individual scholars. Such rankings do not effectively measure research quality, which should be the essence of any evaluation. These quantity rankings are not objective; two citation rankings, based on different samples, produce entirely different results. For that reason, an alternative ranking is developed as a quality indicator, based on membership on academic editorial boards of professional journals. It turns out that the ranking of individual scholars based on that measure is far from objective. Furthermore, the results differ markedly, depending on whether research quantity or quality is considered. Thus, career decisions based on rankings are dominated by chance and do not reflect research quality. We suggest that evaluations should rely on multiple criteria. Public management should return to approved methods such as engaging independent experts who in turn provide measurements of research quality for their research communities