Multilingual Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A Seven-Country European Study

Funding information: National Science Centre in Poland, Grant/Award Number: UMO‐2017/26/E/HS2/00019; European Cooperation in Science and Technology, Grant/Award Number: CA15137; Slovenian Research Agency, Grant/Award Number: P2‐0210; Flemish GovernmentWe investigate the state of multilingualism across the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using a comprehensive data set of research outputs from seven European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Flanders [Belgium], Norway, Poland, and Slovenia). Although English tends to be the dominant language of science, SSH researchers often produce culturally and societally relevant work in their local languages. We collected and analyzed a set of 164,218 peer‐reviewed journal articles (produced by 51,063 researchers from 2013 to 2015) and found that multilingualism is prevalent despite geographical location and field. Among the researchers who published at least three journal articles during this time period, over one‐third from the various countries had written their work in at least two languages. The highest share of researchers who published in only one language were from Flanders (80.9%), whereas the lowest shares were from Slovenia (57.2%) and Poland (59.3%). Our findings show that multilingual publishing is an ongoing practice in many SSH research fields regardless of geographical location, political situation, and/or historical heritage. Here we argue that research is international, but multilingual publishing keeps locally relevant research alive with the added potential for creating impact

The mathematical review system: does reviewer status play a role in the citation process?

This paper revisits an aspect of citation theory (i.e., citer motivation) with respect to the Mathematical Review system and the reviewer’s role in mathematics. We focus on a set of journal articles (369) published in Singularity Theory (1974–2003), the mathematicians who wrote editorial reviews for these articles, and the number of citations each reviewed article received within a 5 year period. Our research hypothesis is that the cognitive authority of a high status reviewer plays a positive role in how well a new article is received and cited by others. Bibliometric evidence points to the contrary: Singularity Theorists of lower status (junior researchers) have reviewed slightly more well-cited articles (2–5 citations, excluding author self-citations) than their higher status counterparts (senior researchers). One explanation for this result is that lower status researchers may have been asked to review ‘trendy’ or more accessible parts of mathematics, which are easier to use and cite. We offer further explanations and discuss a number of implications for a theory of citation in mathematics. This research opens the door for comparisons to other editorial review systems, such as book reviews written in the social sciences or humanities

Taking scholarly books into account : current developments in five European countries

For academic book authors and the institutions assessing their research performance, the relevance of books is undisputed. In spite of this, the absence of comprehensive international databases covering the items and information needed for the assessment of this type of publication has urged several European countries to develop custom-built information systems for the registration of scholarly books, as well as weighting and funding allocation procedures. For the first time, these systems make the assessment of books as a research output feasible. The present paper summarizes the main features of the registration and/or assessment systems developed in five European countries/regions (Spain, Denmark, Flanders, Finland and Norway), focusing on the processes involved in the collection and processing of data on book publications, their weighting, as well as the application in the context of research assessment and funding

Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries

For academic book authors and the institutions assessing their research performance, the relevance of books is undisputed. In spite of this, the absence of comprehensive international databases covering the items and information needed for the assessment of this type of publication has urged several European countries to develop custom-built information systems for the registration of scholarly books, as well as weighting and funding allocation procedures. For the first time, these systems make the assessment of books as a research output feasible. The present paper summarizes the main features of the registration and/or assessment systems developed in five European countries/regions (Spain, Denmark, Flanders, Finland and Norway), focusing on the processes involved in the collection and processing of data on book publications, their weighting, as well as the application in the context of research assessment and funding.Peer Reviewe

Taking scholarly books into account, part II: a comparison of 19 European countries in evaluation and funding

In May 2016, an article published in Scientometrics, titled ‘Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries’, introduced a comparison of book evaluation schemes implemented within five European countries. The present article expands upon this work by including a broader and more heterogeneous set of countries (19 European countries in total) and adding new variables for comparison. Two complementary classification models were used to point out the commonalities and differences between each country’s evaluation scheme. First, we employed a double-axis classification to highlight the degree of ‘formalization’ for each scheme, second, we classified each country according to the presence or absence of a bibliographic database. Each country’s evaluation scheme possesses its own unique merits and details; however the result of this study was the identification of four main types of book evaluation systems, leading to the following main conclusions. First, countries may be differentiated on the basis of those that use a formalized evaluation system and those that do not. Also, countries that do use a formalized evaluation system either have a supra-institutional database, quality labels for publishers and/or publisher rankings in place to harmonize the evaluations. Countries that do not use a formalized system tend to rely less on quantitative evaluation procedures. Each evaluation type has its advantages and disadvantages; therefore an exchange between countries might help to generate future improvements