Jointly published by Akadmiai Kiad, Budapest Scientometrics,

and Springer, Dordrecht Vol. 66, No. 1 (2006) 81100

Bibliometric monitoring of research performance

in the Social Sciences and the Humanities:
A review
ANTON J. NEDERHOF

Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden (The Netherlands)

This paper addresses research performance monitoring of the social sciences and the
humanities using citation analysis. Main differences in publication and citation behavior between
the (basic) sciences and the social sciences and humanities are outlined. Limitations of the (S)SCI
and A&HCI for monitoring research performance are considered. For research performance
monitoring in many social sciences and humanities, the methods used in science need to be
extended. A broader range of both publications (including non-ISI journals and monographs) and
citation indicators (including non-ISI reference citation values) is needed. Three options for
bibliometric monitoring are discussed.

Introduction

Originally, the Science Citation Index (SCI) was developed by the Institute of
Scientific Information (ISI)1 at Philadelphia, USA for use in the sciences and was
intended for facilitating literature searches rather than citation impact analyses
(GARFIELD, 1979). ISI published the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) in 1973, the
Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) in 1980. ISI coverage of serial publications
is not comprehensive, but aims at including the most highly cited, internationally
visible, scientific serials (HICKS, 1999). Thus, it covers the top-end of research
performance, which is usually the most valuable in monitoring of research, if not
defined too narrowly.2

1ISI is now owned by the Thomson International Group.

2In the UK and elsewhere, output of research units has been evaluated by peer reviewers scoring the quality
of a limited number of papers, often only four or five. The resulting evaluation score does not necessarily
provide a good indication of the international impact of the main output of the unit, and may not yield a valid
comparison with that of other units (e.g., GILLETT, 1987; THELWALL & HARRIES, 2004).

Received June 22, 2005

Address for correspondence:
ANTON J. NEDERHOF
Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University
P. O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands
E-mail: nederhof@cwts.leidenuniv.nl

01389130/US $ 20.00
Copyright 2006 Akadmiai Kiad, Budapest
All rights reserved
A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

Many early bibliometric studies tended to focus on the citation impact of journals
rather than that of individual publications. The well-known impact factor is produced
by ISI for most journals indexed for its databases. Perhaps the main attraction of using
impact factors in monitoring research performance is that it is easy to arrive at overall
citation impact scores. The impact factor of a journal shows how often its articles that
are one and two years old are cited, on average, for example, how often 2001 and 2002
articles of the American Psychologist are cited in 2003. This is evidently a very short-
term impact indicator. Also, an impact factor includes self-citations, so a biased
impression might result of the external citation impact of the journal. Furthermore, ISI
tends to count citations to all items in a journal, but in the computation of the impact
factor, divides these citations by just the number of articles, letters, and review articles
(MOED & VAN LEEUWEN, 1996; VAN LEEUWEN & MOED, 2001). In some cases, this
might lead to considerable error. Perhaps even more important, use of an impact factor
to weigh articles assumes that each article in a journal will obtain the same impact.
Bibliometric research has shown that this assumption is untenable: within a journal, a
large variation in citation impact of individual articles is found (e.g., VAN RAAN, 1988).
Therefore, impact factors provide a rather limited insight into the research performance
of units (e.g., LEYDESDORFF, 2003).
Subsequent monitoring efforts focused on the citation impact of individual
publications. After successful monitoring results in many science fields (GARFIELD,
1979; VAN RAAN, 1988, MOED et al., 2004), bibliometrical citation analysis has been
extended to monitoring of research in social sciences and humanities (e.g.,
FINKENSTAEDT, 1990; GARFIELD, 1979; KATZ, 1999; HICKS, 1999, 2004; NEDERHOF et
al., 1989; NEDERHOF & ZWAAN, 1991; PLETTE, 1993; VAN RAAN, 1998). Bibliometric
citation analysis studies have been successfully conducted in many social sciences and
humanities subfields, including psychology (e.g., MEERTENS et al., 1992; NEDERHOF,
1989; NEDERHOF et al., 1989; NEDERHOF & NOYONS, 1992; NEDERHOF et al., 2000),
anthropology (NEDERHOF et al., 1989), economics (e.g., NEDERHOF & VAN RAAN,
1993; TIJSSEN et al., 2003), linguistics, literature, and history (e.g., NEDERHOF, 1996;
NEDERHOF & ERLINGS, 1993; PLETTE, 1993; ZWAAN & NEDERHOF, 1990), archaeology
(NORRIS & OPPENHEIM, 2003), and sociology (e.g., CRONIN et al., 1997; GLNZEL,
1996; NEDERHOF, 1985; WEBSTER, 1998). Some studies included even all or most of
the social sciences and/or the humanities (ADAMS, 1998; INGWERSEN, 2000; NEDERHOF
& VAN WIJK, 1996, 1997; NOWT, 2004).
However, the early studies indicated that the methods developed for the use of
bibliometrics in monitoring of research performance in sciences could not be applied
without modifications to most social sciences and the humanities (see below). One
reason for this is that in the latter and the former fields there are important differences
between researchers concerning publication behavior and citation behavior.

82 Scientometrics 66 (2006)
 A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

None of the previous reviews included an extensive treatment of the humanities,

and, recently, important developments have occurred in the development of research
methods used in monitoring the social sciences and humanities. An integrated review of
the social sciences and the humanities has the advantage that both can be used as a
benchmark for the other. Moreover, both are compared with the sciences. Some of
humanities research is shown to share characteristics with social sciences, and part of
social science research has much in common with traditional humanities research styles.
Here, I intend to summarize some of the main issues in quantitative research
performance monitoring of research units in the social sciences and the humanities
using bibliometric citation data. Finally, options are outlined for bibliometric
monitoring of research performance.

Comparing the sciences with the social sciences and humanities

Below, some of the main differences in publication and citation behavior between
the (basic) sciences and the social sciences and humanities are outlined. At the start, it
should be recognized that social sciences and humanities research is not one
homogeneous block (nor even two separate ones), but is heterogeneous in nature: some
of the social sciences and humanities resemble natural and life sciences in publication
and citation behavior, while others share characteristics with the traditional profile of
humanities scholarship (NEDERHOF et al., 1989; THOMPSON, 2002).

A more pronounced national and regional orientation

Primarily, many sciences cater to an international public of scientists. Basic research

in fields such as physics or chemistry has an international research frontier (PRICE,
1963). The research frontier refers to all the work currently being done by all active
researchers in a discipline (cf. COLE, 1983). In contrast, a considerable part of the
output in many social sciences and humanities fields is primarily oriented at national or
regional topics and a local public, and they appear frequently in regional or national
serials, monographs, and reports (e.g., BROADUS, 1971; HICKS, 1999; KYVIK, 1988;
NEDERHOF et al., 1989).
Societies differ, and therefore results from humanities or social science studies
obtained in one country may not always be very useful to researchers in other countries.
At least in the social sciences, evidence indicates that the limited relevance of national
or regional results to researchers in other countries should not be overstated. In a
comparison of topics of research in the social and behavioral sciences among five
western countries (US, UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands), peer experts identified
few topics that were of US or national interest only (NEDERHOF & VAN WIJK, 1997). In
this study, it was concluded that: With the exception of a minority of topics related to

Scientometrics 66 (2006) 83
A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

political science, to social issues, and to a lesser extent physical health and geographical
location, the large majority of the topics seems to reflect a transnational substantive
interest. In addition, the five countries studied here share many social and political
issues. Of course, this may not be true for other countries, and in particular non-Western
countries. The present data suggest that the research frontier on many topics in the
social and behavioral sciences is international (NEDERHOF & VAN WIJK, 1997: p. 271).
Although there is an international research frontier in humanities research (see also
below), some fields in the social sciences and humanities have a relatively strong
regional or national orientation, for example (parts of) law, linguistics, literature
research, sociology, public administration, or political sciences (LUWEL et al., 1999).
Here, publication modes may diverge from those at the international research frontier,
with greater emphasis on reports and publications oriented at regional or national
audiences. In non-Anglo-Saxon countries, nationally and regionally oriented papers are
often published in a national language rather than English, and/or frequently in
national/regional media (cf. KYVIK, 2003; NEDERHOF et al., 1989; SCHOEPFLIN, 1992).
In the SSCI, about 93%95% of the papers is published in English, 2%3% in German,
about 1% in French, and 2% in other languages (NEDERHOF & NOYONS, 1990; VAN
LEEUWEN, 2005). In the A&HCI, 70%72% of the documents is in English, with other
major languages being French (11%) and German (8%) (GLNZEL & DEBACKERE,
2003; NEDERHOF & NOYONS, 1990).
Although national or regional orientation tends to be important, this certainly does
not imply that social science and humanities research is inherently or even for the most
part nationally or regionally bound, but such an orientation tends to be more
pronounced than in most of the sciences.

Less publication in serials; more in books

The sciences on the one hand, and the humanities and social sciences on the other
hand show different preferences for publication modes. Traditionally, in many social
sciences and humanities fields, publications in edited volumes and monographs tend to
be important for both output and impact (e.g., BROADUS, 1971; CLEMENS et al., 1995;
CRONIN et al., 1997; HICKS & POTTER, 1991; KYVIK, 2003; LEWISON, 2001;
LINDHOLM-ROMANTSCHUK & WARNER, 1996; NEDERHOF et al., 1989; NOCK, 2001;
PRICE, 1970; SMALL & CRANE, 1979; THOMPSON, 2002; but see HARGENS, 2000).
In particular, but not only, in the society-oriented disciplines and many humanities
fields, many departments and scholars derive an important share of their citation impact
from their publications outside ISI source journals (e.g., CLEMENS et al., 1995;
NEDERHOF, 1989; NEDERHOF & ERLINGS, 1993). For example, in a study of (mostly)
US sociology, books were clearly cited more often than articles, by a ratio of 3:1
(CLEMENS et al., 1995), a ratio similar to that obtained in economics (see Table 1).

84 Scientometrics 66 (2006)
 A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

Table 1. Output and citation impact of six British economics groups

Type of publication N %N C %C c/p

Articles ISI 140 27 133 57 0.95

Articles non-ISI 53 10 14 6 0.26
Chapters 58 11 19 8 0.33
Books 13 3 41 18 3.15
Other 260 50 27 12 0.10

Total 524 100 234 100 0.44

Source: NEDERHOF & VAN RAAN (1993). Note: N = number of publications; C = number of citations;
c/p = citations per publication.

Sociological books received a majority of their citations from outside the discipline, but
this was only just true for the most highly cited quartile of journals (CLEMENS et al.,
1995, p. 460). Sociology articles tended to be cited mostly (54%) within the discipline.
Book authors received their degrees from more elite institutions, and were nearly 5
years more senior than article authors (CLEMENS et al., 1995, p. 464). Finally, book
authors were much more likely to employ qualitative data, whereas quantitative data
were more common in articles in two major journals (CLEMENS et al., 1995: p. 459).
Books are frequently used as a source in older, pre-SSCI and pre-A&HCI, citation
studies of the social sciences and humanities. In the social sciences, references to books
and monographs vary between 31% (education) to 62% (sociology), whereas books are
much less often cited in chemistry and physics (5%8%) (BROADUS, 1971). According
to SMALL & CRANE (1979), only 1% of cited items in high-energy physics referred to
books, as opposed to 15% (psychology), 25% (economics) and 40% (sociology) in three
social sciences.
In literature research in the Netherlands, 67% of the citations went to books, 7% to
chapters, while 26% went to journals (NEDERHOF, 1995). For Anglo-Saxon journals
these percentages were, respectively, 66%, 15% and 17% (THOMSON, 2002). In older
studies in the humanities (BROADUS, 1971), a high percentage of references concerned
monographs or books: 60% (philology), 69.5% (music), and 71% (fine arts literature).
More recently, in single-authored philosophy monographs, 70% of the references were
to monographs, 15% to chapters, and 13% to serial articles (CULLARS, 1998).
Apparently, in parts of some humanities disciplines, a traditional publishing culture
dominated by monographs is still vivid, as it is in parts of sociology (e.g., CRONIN et al.,
1997).
GLNZEL & SCHOEPFLIN (1999) analysed the references in the 1993 SCI and SSCI
databases. They found that 64% of the psychology and psychiatry references concerned
serials, while this percentage amounted to 56% for business, 49% for economics, 40%
for sociology, and 35% for history and philosophy of science and social sciences.
However, much higher percentages were obtained in solid state physics (85%),

Scientometrics 66 (2006) 85
A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

analytical chemistry (84%), but not clearly in electronic engineering (62%). Of course,
in bibliometric monitoring studies, the focus tends to be on recent publications, and
there, the importance of journal articles and books may be different. Books and chapters
tend to take longer to reach their citation peaks than journal articles (NEDERHOF et al., 1993).
In most disciplines in the social sciences and humanities, journals were found to be
the single most important medium for publication (e.g., BURNHILL & TUBBY-HILLE,
1994; HARGENS, 2000; NEDERHOF et al., 1989; VAN DER MEULEN & LEYDESDORFF,
1991). In particular in the behavioral sciences and economics, journal articles account
for the majority of citations (e.g., see Table 1; MOED et al., 2003; NEDERHOF, 1995b;
NEDERHOF et al., 1989). In recent years, there are indications that social scientists and
humanities scholars publish more often in journals - particularly those covered by the
ISI (e.g., BUTLER, 2003; KYVIK, 2003).

A different pace of theoretical development

Compared to many of the hard sciences, many social sciences and humanities
seem to be characterized by a slower pace of theoretical development (e.g., COLE,
1983). However, there may be large differences between, for example, experimental
psychology and Scandinavian literature. A slower pace of theoretical development may
be reflected in various citation characteristics of publications, such as a larger cited half-
life of publications and a higher citation rate of older literature. In addition, social
sciences and humanities fields tend to have a (much) lower volume of citations than
many science fields (GLNZEL, 1996; NEDERHOF et al., 1989). Reference lists in social
sciences and humanities articles more often contain publications older than 5, 10, or
even 15 years than in the sciences (BALDI & HARGENS, 1997; BROADUS, 1971; COLE,
1983; MOED, 1989; PRICE, 1970; QUINONES-VIDAL et al., 2004; THOMPSON, 2002; but
see ADAIR & VOHRA, 2003).
The Price Index has been frequently used to compute the percentage of references
in journals to literature published in the last five years (PRICE, 1970). Although not
ideal, as it does not show the whole age distribution of references, this provides a first,
rough insight in the recency of references. For physics and biochemistry, the Price
Index varied between 60% and 70%, whereas for social science journals a range of
40%50% was observed (PRICE, 1970). Using a different, although still not ideal
measurement tool, GLNZEL & SCHOEPFLIN (1999) found that the mean reference age
for SCI and SSCI journals tended to coincide surprisingly, notwithstanding differences
on the field level. They showed that mean reference age was lowest in biomedicine
fields (78 years), and highest in sociology (12.5 years) and history and philosophy of
science and social sciences (39 years). However, mean reference age did not differ
appreciably in solid state physics, mathematics, psychology and psychiatry, and
business and economics (1011.5 years).

86 Scientometrics 66 (2006)
 A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

Furthermore, the distribution of citations over the years may differ for the sciences
and social sciences and humanities. Over a 14-year period, articles in psychology
journals took more than 8 years to reach 50% of their citations compared to 4.56.5
years for physics articles (GLNZEL & SCHOEPFLIN, 1994). Moreover, there appears to
be a large difference in obsolescence of the literature: while an estimated 46%75% of
the physics articles did not receive any citations after 14 years, compared to only 14%
22% for the psychology articles. In a study of COLE (1983), after correction for the
volume of the literature produced during the past 50 years, the Price Index for
psychology articles did not differ significantly from those of natural sciences. HARGENS
(2000) noted that the earliest, foundational paper on a topic tends to be much more
heavily cited in sociology, economics and psychology than in both physical and life
sciences and a humanities field.
In the humanities, the age of references might easily be misleading concerning the
recency of work cited. A study of the language or literary style used by Dante (13th14th
century) might contain some references to publications by Dante, while others will be to
publications of linguists doing similar work. Citations to primary work (Dante) are so
called data source citations or, briefly, data citations, while citations to secondary
publications (e.g., other linguists) are called influence citations (COLE, 1983;
THOMPSON, 2002). COLE (1983) noted that the mean age of references in two English
literature journals amounted to 43 years. However, data citations averaged 83 years,
whereas influence citations had a mean age of only 18 years. Nevertheless, after
correcting for the size and age of the literature in the field, COLE (1983) found that the
corrected Price Index for English literature influence citations was significantly lower
than that for natural scientists and psychology researchers.
In his seminal study, COLE (1983) found little difference between the natural and
social sciences and humanities at the international research frontier, but large
differences in the extent to which core knowledge accumulates. Concerning the latter,
he found that in undergraduate textbooks, very few of the references were to recent
research in natural sciences (6% in chemistry and 3% in physics), versus no less than
75% in sociology textbooks. Whereas authors of natural science textbooks tended to
cite about 75100 articles or books, sociology textbooks averaged 800 references. In
physics and chemistry, COLE (1983) noted almost universal agreement in undergraduate
textbooks on the important theories and exemplars, while in sociology textbooks, little
agreement existed and a wide variety of topics of current interest was discussed. Also,
material covered in current textbooks and those 20 years ago was essentially the same in
physics and chemistry, whereas current textbooks in sociology cited only a small
fraction of the work included 20 years ago.
In contrast, at the research frontier in the natural sciences, COLE (1983, p. 131)
noted substantial levels of disagreement about who is doing important work, what are
important problems, what research should be funded (but see HARGENS, 2000).

Scientometrics 66 (2006) 87
A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

He found, for example, a high level of disagreement among reviewers of the same NSF
proposal. Also, he cited a study by Henry Small that found a weak correlation between
ratings given by referees to articles and citations once the articles were published in the
journals (COLE, 1983, p. 132). COLE (1983) concluded that, apparently, in sociology the
core of established knowledge is very small and the research frontier is relatively large.

Single scholar approach versus team research

Particularly in many humanities, and in some social sciences, a single scholar

approach to doing research can be found, mostly in softer, less quantitative fields.
Characteristically, individual scholars, working largely on their own, are engaged in
publishing extensive monographs and/or single-authored articles (e.g., THOMPSON,
2002). RUBIO (1992) found, for example, that during 19861988 in Spain only 14% of
the production in the social sciences was co-authored, and only 3% in linguistics and
language. In contrast, team research dominates many fields of science, and many
articles include a considerable number of co-authors (NEDERHOF & MOED, 1989). For
19982000, KYVIK (2003) observed that 80%84% of the scientific Norwegian
publications in medicine and the natural sciences had more than one author, 72% in
technology, 43% in the social sciences and only 14% in the humanities. BOURKE (1997)
noted for Australian publications that in the early 1990s, 80% of the natural and life
sciences SCI papers was multi-authored, 50% of the social sciences SSCI papers, and
12% of the humanities A&HCI papers. In bibliometric monitoring of research, it needs
to be taken into account that a team-oriented scientist tends to produce considerably
more publications than the single author.

A greater share of publications directed at the non-scholarly public

Whereas scientists address mostly other scientists, humanities scholars and social
scientists have to cater as well to the general public (e.g., VAN DER MEULEN &
LEYDESDORFF, 1991). A related phenomenon is that a high percentage of social science
studies is (in)directly relevant to policy (NEDERHOF & VAN WIJK, 1997). In many
applied sciences and engineering fields, researchers target part of their publications by
means of trade journals to specialized segments of the population or to non-scientific
specialists (NEDERHOF & MEIJER, 1995). In some social science and humanities fields,
up to 75% of publications of researchers address a non-scholarly public (e.g.,
NEDERHOF et al., 1989; NEDERHOF & ERLINGS, 1993). NEDERHOF et al. (1989) found
that departments in three social sciences devoted between 3% and 33% of their
publications to a non-scholarly public, while in five humanities disciplines, this varied
between 3% and 43%. In modern language and literature studies in the Netherlands,

88 Scientometrics 66 (2006)
 A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

the figures were higher for literature fields (26%73%) than for linguistics (8%44%)
(NEDERHOF & ERLINGS, 1993). In many sciences, such publications appear much less
often (WILLEMS, 2003).

Conclusions

Although there is a tendency that science communication patterns are increasingly

found in social sciences and humanities, differences in publication and citation behavior
still tend to be large in many fields (e.g., COZZENS, 1985; CULLARS, 1998; KYVIK,
2003; NEDERHOF et al., 1989; RUBIO, 1992). As noted before, the social sciences and
humanities are by no means uniform in this respect. Bibliometric methods for
monitoring research performance should reflect the heterogeneity in publication and
citation behavior of social scientists and humanities scholars. Moreover, as the next
section shows, the citation indices used predominantly in social sciences and humanities
tend to have more limitations than the SCI for most sciences.

(S)SCI and A&HCI coverage

Table 2. (S)SCI and A&HCI coverage by field

Field % Articles in (S)SCI, % Fully scholarly % Core

A&HCI journals journals

A. Dutch social and behavioral sciences

(NEDERHOF et al., 1989; NEDERHOF & ZWAAN, 1991)
Experimental psychology 62 69 100
General literature 39 45 89
French literature 28 NA NA
General linguistics 21 22 96
Anthropology 15 NA NA
Dutch literature 13 18 23
Dutch language 10 11 18
Social history 10 NA NA
Public administration 2 5 NA

B. Australian social sciences and humanities

(Butler, unpublished; quoted in GLNZEL et al., 2003)
Anthropology & archaeology 44
Economics 43
Philosophy & law 43
Geography 39
Sociology 32
Political science 27
Asian history 27
History 25

Note: NA = not available

Scientometrics 66 (2006) 89
A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

Bibliometric monitoring studies are often based only on publications in serials

covered by the (S)SCI, A&HCI and associated ISI indices. Although coverage of
journal articles in the sciences and life sciences may be very high in the SCI (well above
80% or even 90% in many fields), coverage of social sciences and humanities tends to
be considerably less extensive in the (S)SCI and the A&HCI (e.g., HICKS, 1999;
NEDERHOF et al., 1989; SCHOEPFLIN, 1992).
In a study of nine social sciences and humanities fields in the 1980s, NEDERHOF et
al. (1989) and NEDERHOF & ZWAAN (1991) found that the percentage of articles from
Dutch university departments covered by the ISI citation indices varied between 2%
(public administration) and 62% (experimental psychology) for the social sciences (see
Table 2). In the humanities, ISI coverage varied to a lesser extent (10%39%). ISI
coverage of fully scholarly journals tended to be somewhat higher, while that of core
journals3 in a field was (nearly) perfect for internationally oriented fields, but still rather
low for more national-oriented fields. Part of this wide spread is due to the
predominance of not publishing in English in some subfields. In contrast, for Australian
social sciences and humanities in the 1990s, Butler (in GLNZEL at al., 2003), who did
not include the behavioral sciences, obtained a considerably more narrow spread in
SSCI coverage (25%44%).
In a study of Modern literature research in the Netherlands, ISI coverage of journal
articles in literature varied between 11% (Scandinavian literature) to 83% (English
literature), with coverage around 50% for Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish articles, and
sizeable portions of French (30%) and German (39%) articles (NEDERHOF & ERLINGS,
1993). In this study, the coverage of, probably more internationally visible, articles in
non-Dutch journals was mediocre only for Scandinavian articles (27%), but varied
between 58% (French) to 90% (English) for other literature fields.
An earlier study showed that for language and linguistics, ISI covered core journals
quite well, except in the Dutch language field (NEDERHOF & ZWAAN, 1991). However,
NEDERHOF & ERLINGS (1993) found that ISI coverage of modern language and
linguistics articles varied between 5% (Scandinavian) and 46% (English). After
correction for publishing in Dutch journals, ISI coverage is above 50% for English
(75%) and Spanish (52%), while varying between 33% (Italian) and 41% (German) for
the other object languages except Scandinavian (20%). According to NEDERHOF &
ERLINGS (1993), the lower ISI coverage in language and linguistics indicates a tendency
of Dutch researchers to publish outside core journals in the field.

3 Core journals were defined as journals that are well known (at least 20% of experts in a world-wide survey
knows the journal well enough to evaluate it), possess high scholarly quality (mean rating above 7.5 on a scale
from 1 to 10), and are found very useful to ones own research by at least 20% of scholars (NEDERHOF &
ZWAAN, 1991).

90 Scientometrics 66 (2006)
 A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

Many important social science and humanities journals that are published on the
European continent are not covered by the SSCI and A&HCI, although they are
(largely) published in English. This means that scientists may appear to have a higher
number of articles in ISI citation indices than social scientists and humanities scholars,
even if they are equally productive in terms of journal publications. In addition, the
latter may miss a considerably larger number of citations from articles in important non-
ISI journals.
Is there a USA dominance in the SSCI and A&HCI? Among the social sciences, the
percentage of USA publications tended to be high in law (83%), management science
(71%) and education (70%), while it varied between 54% (economics) and 62%
(psychology) for other social science fields (NEDERHOF & NOYONS, 1990). In the
humanities, USA presence tended to be lower, as it varied between 44% (history) and
61% (creative arts) (NEDERHOF & NOYONS, 1990). To some extent, the high USA
presence reflects the dominant position of the USA in many social sciences and some
humanities fields. Partly also, this reflects the USA basis of the ISI. Clearly in law, but
also to some extent in management science and education, these findings suggest that,
in the late 1980s, SSCI coverage may not have been representative of non-USA
research. For the late 1990s, however, INGWERSEN (2000) showed that Scandinavian
countries and the Netherlands are quite well visible in the SSCI by publications and
citation impact in management and education.
In recent decades, European non-Anglo-Saxon countries have increased their
percentage of world production share, as evident from the SSCI and A&HCI,
considerably (e.g., INGWERSEN, 2000; NEDERHOF & NOYONS, 1990; VAN LEEUWEN,
2005). For these countries, the SSCI and A&HCI have become more useful as a
monitoring tool.
Several studies addressed the extent of the USA dominance in citation impact using
the A&HCI and the SSCI. In a comparison of the better European and USA linguistics
departments, NEDERHOF & NOYONS (1992) found that, while the citation impact of
journal articles of departments from the Netherlands was below that of the USA
department, an Italian one matched the USA citation impact level. In the General
literature field, the impact of the journal articles of a USA department was comparable
to that of a Dutch department, but well below a German department. NEDERHOF &
NOYONS (1992, p. 252) concluded that in the A&HCI, the extent of Anglo-Saxon bias is
at most a relative one, not an absolute one. INGWERSEN (2000) and VAN LEEUWEN
(2005) reached a similar conclusion concerning the USA presence in the SSCI.
Particularly outside the USA, the less extensive coverage of the ISI citation indices
of non-Anglo-Saxon journals in some social science and humanities fields has given
rise to a variety of, usually short-lived, attempts to create alternative, often regionally
oriented, citation indices. For example, HAGENDIJK & PRINS (1984) analyzed references
in Dutch sociology journals not covered by ISI. Another database focused on Polish

Scientometrics 66 (2006) 91
A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

sociology journals (WEBSTER, 1998; WINCLAWSKA, 1996). These efforts traced some
work of regional or national importance that did not have an appreciable worldwide
impact. Recently, this idea has been revived by the European Science Foundation,
which intends to create a Humanities Citation Index for 15 fields, including
linguistics, psychology, pedagogy, and anthropology, but not, apparently, fields such as
sociology and economics (ESF, 2002; VESTERGAARD, 2003).
In general, despite limitations, the more important international journals in fields
with a dominant international research frontier are represented reasonably well to very
well in the SSCI and A&HCI (e.g., NEDERHOF & VAN WIJK, 1997; ZWAAN &
NEDERHOF, 1990). SSCI and A&HCI coverage of fields or communities of researchers
who are strongly regionally or nationally oriented is less extensive (NEDERHOF et al.,
1989; RUBIO, 1992).
Another limitation of the (S)SCI and A&HCI refers to their non-coverage of non-
serial publications. Especially for those fields in the social sciences and humanities
where books form an important medium of publication (see above), this represents a
shortcoming.

Limitations of macro-level monitoring

The research performance of large research units such as countries has been
monitored in many bibliometric studies (e.g., DOR et al., 1996; GLNZEL, 1996;
INGWERSEN, 2000; NOWT, 2004; SCHUBERT et al., 1989). It should be noted that
bibliometric statistics on that macro-level tend to provide only a limited view of the
performance at lower aggregation levels. Even in macro-scale studies, a good overall
performance score in a subfield may depend only on a few excellent research units or
individuals, whereas a relatively low national performance score may obscure a
significant volume of medium- or high quality research. Therefore, it is important to
look beyond the macro-level in order to identify productive and highly cited research
units.

Modifications of indicators

In general, for bibliometric monitoring of research performance in social sciences

and humanities, the same methods can be applied as used in science, but with several
extensions. In particular, a broader range of publications and indicators is needed in
many social sciences and humanities. In addition to reliance on ISI source serials, one
needs to include:

92 Scientometrics 66 (2006)
 A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

non-ISI source serials;

monographs, contributions to edited volumes, in some cases formal reports;
and, if one desires to monitor the utility of research:
publications directed at a non-scholarly public.
In many fields, indicators need to be based on both ISI and non-ISI publications. A
majority of citations in some parts of social sciences and humanities may originate from
non-ISI publications (e.g., NEDERHOF, 1989; NEDERHOF & NOYONS, 1992; THOMPSON,
2002).
In many social sciences and humanities, citations to articles in SSCI-source journals
tend to increase strongly up to the third or fourth year after publication (e.g., NEDERHOF
et al., 1989). Short-term citation impact tends to give a reasonable indication of medium
or even long-term impact in many fields (e.g., NEDERHOF et al., 1993). In some fields,
or parts of fields, however, longer mid-term citation windows may be needed, ranging
for example, from 1-4 years to 1-6 years instead of 1-3 years (e.g., GLNZEL &
SCHOEPFLIN, 1995; NEDERHOF & NOYONS, 1992; NEDERHOF & VAN RAAN, 1993;
NEDERHOF et al., 1993). It is often rewarding to monitor long-term citation impact
(BOTT & HARGENS, 1991; GLNZEL & SCHOEPFLIN, 1995; VAN LEEUWEN et al., 2003;
VAN LEEUWEN, 2005).
For non-journal material, such as monographs and chapters, citation peaks tend to
occur relatively late. Both in science disciplines and in social sciences and humanities, a
five-year citation window tends to be a minimum requirement for meaningful analysis
(e.g., NEDERHOF et al., 1993).
One needs to compensate for the smaller volumes of citations in the social sciences
and humanities, for instance by monitoring a longer period of time, or by using longer
citation windows. Citation impact indicators (such as the number of citations per
publication) need to be compared with the citation impact of other publications in the
same journal, and with other publications in the same subfield. The latter takes into
account that (social) scientists and humanities scholars from different (sub)fields differ
in citation behavior.
It is important to assess ISI coverage of (sub-)fields in the social sciences and
humanities. If the (S)SCI or A&HCI coverage is very low, other ways to assess research
performance may be called for, particularly if output of units in (S)SCI and A&HCI
journals is low. For example, it is possible to develop weighted publication output
indicators based on classifications of journals, and, sometimes, other media for
locally/regionally oriented research (MOED et al., 2002; NEDERHOF et al., 2001). Also,
as described below, methods are being developed to construct international impact
reference values for non-ISI publications (VISSER et al., 2003, 2004).

Scientometrics 66 (2006) 93
A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

Main options for bibliometric monitoring of research performance

How can we improve upon extant bibliometric methods and information sources for
internationally comparative citation analyses of research performance in the social
sciences and humanities? Below, three options for bibliometric monitoring of research
performance in the humanities and social sciences are discussed. One key technical
parameter deals with the type of publication output included in the monitoring: the
research literature as covered in ISI source journals (ISI publications) and/or in other
(non-ISI) sources of information. A second parameter concerns whether or not citation
impact is measured.

Option 1: Using journal and book weights

Output lists of research units can be used to establish a count of the number of items
that are listed as publication output. More sophisticated variants select only refereed
media. Even these suffer from the basic problem that an article in a top journal is
weighted equally with a contribution to a more modest, albeit refereed, outlet. To deal
with this problem, a limited, but cautious monitoring method aims at the development
of sets of journal and monograph weights. When publication output in ISI source
journals is low, and this is no exception in parts of the social sciences and humanities
(such as non-USA law), this option is particularly valuable. Lists of journals and
publishers are rated in surveys of both national and international experts, and, based on
the ratings, trimmed statistical weights are computed (cf. LUWEL et al., 1999; MOED et
al., 2002; NEDERHOF et al., 2001). These weights can be applied to output of research
units. In addition, output directed at a non-scholarly public can be categorized and
counted. Although this method represents sophisticated output monitoring, it does not
include measurement of citation impact. Also, it focuses on the perceived quality of
publication media rather than that of individual publications.

Option 2: Standard Citation analysis

Option 2 requires that publications of research units in serials covered by the ISI
citation indices are retrieved. Often, the most recent output of eight to ten years is
included, but shorter periods of, for instance, five publication years can be monitored if
the output volume in ISI source journals is not too small, and expected citation rates in
the relevant subfields are sufficient for statistical analysis. Subsequently, a citation
analysis can be conducted that includes average journal citation scores and average field
citation scores as benchmarks (e.g., GLNZEL, 1996; NEDERHOF & VAN WIJK, 1997). In
natural and life science fields, this option would not be presented as advancement.

94 Scientometrics 66 (2006)
 A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

However, in social sciences, this type of analysis is, as yet, too often neglected, while
only a limited number of studies have been conducted in the humanities.

Option 3: Citation analysis including non-ISI publications

Option 3.1: Raw citation counts. If ISI coverage of the most important (national or
regional) journals in a particular subfield is wanting, raw citation counts might be
collected to articles published in non-ISI source journals. Citation counts might also
include other important publication categories, such as monographs, contributions to
edited volumes or conference proceedings. Usually, impact of non-English language
material is low, while the impact of grey publications such as unpublished reports,
internal reports and so on tends to be rather disappointing, notwithstanding the
occasional exception. As a rule of thumb, if the extended standard analysis at least
doubles the citation score of the standard citation analysis, it should be seriously
considered. However, in many cases, even in subfields with a monograph publication
tradition (as e.g., economics), 70% or more of the citations tends to go to serial
publications included in the standard analysis. Nevertheless, the extended analysis may
be needed for small groups or individuals with a divergent publication signature, to
obtain a fair indication of their citation impact (cf. NEDERHOF, 1989). A drawback of
this option is that the raw citation counts of non-ISI publications are not compared with
international reference values. However, the next option addresses this point.
Option 3.2: Extended citation analysis with international impact reference values.
At present, methods are developed at CWTS for comparing the impact of non-ISI
publications with international citation impact reference values (cf. VISSER et al., 2003,
2004). The method includes computation of separate reference values for non-ISI
journal articles as well as other contributions to serial publication volumes on the one
hand, and all other non-ISI documents on the other hand. For matching research fields,
the impact of cited documents is then compared with those of all similar non-ISI
documents present in the database. Upper and lower reference values for citation impact
are established. Although this citation analysis method is not yet as precise as the
standard citation analysis, it tends to yield useful and informative outcomes. For
example, for one unit in economics, thousands of non-ISI documents yielded few cited
documents, and the impact ratio of these with the non-ISI reference citation values was
similar to those of the units standard analysis results (VISSER et al., 2003). For another
economics research unit, a higher number of cited non-ISI documents was obtained.
The extended citation analysis proved highly successful in monitoring information
science research units that published frequently in non-ISI conference proceedings
(VISSER et al., 2003).

Scientometrics 66 (2006) 95
A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

Conclusion

The social sciences and the humanities tender to three publics:

1. As in the sciences, publications are directed to other scientists and scholars
at the international research frontier;
2. A separate public are regional or national scientists or scholars. Here, use
of a regional or national language as well as regional or national
publication media, and a focus on topics thought to be primarily of regional
or national interest tend to curtail communication with colleagues
elsewhere;
3. The non-scholarly public.
In addition, notwithstanding the increasing importance of journal articles in
scholarly and scientific communication, monographs provide an important medium for
publication in parts of some social science and humanities fields to all three publics. In
most of the social sciences and the humanities, monograph authors do not seem to
represent a distinct public, although they may prefer different methods, deal with a
broader set of topics, use older material more often, and may conform more often to a
traditional humanities research style (HARGENS, 2000; THOMPSON, 2002). Nevertheless,
monograph and journal authors cite one another (CRONIN et al., 1997; THOMPSON,
2002).
In general, to monitor research performance at the international research frontier in
social sciences and humanities, the same bibliometric methods can be applied as in
science, but with several extensions. In particular, a broader range of both publications
(including non-ISI journals and monographs) and indicators is needed in many social
sciences and humanities. Conditions allowing bibliometric monitoring can improve fast
and sudden (e.g., ADAIR & VOHRA, 2003; INGWERSEN, 2000). Therefore, it pays to
check developments in (parts of) fields that used to be thought of as difficult terrain for
bibliometric monitoring.
Bibliometric monitoring studies are not perfect, and neither is peer review. Ideally,
combining both most likely produces an optimal result.
Perhaps the most promising option concerning bibliometric monitoring combines
analysis of both articles in ISI source journals and non-ISI publications. An extended
citation analysis yields, for both types of publications, a benchmarking of citation
impact scores with international reference values. Further refinement of this method
would mean a considerable advancement in bibliometric monitoring by means of
citation analysis in the social sciences and the humanities.

96 Scientometrics 66 (2006)
 A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

The ESRC (UK) has funded part of the work included in this study. Earlier versions of parts of this paper
were presented at SPRU, Bristol, UK on May 29, 1995, at the Royal Society, London, UK on May 7, 2004,
and at the 8th international S&T indicators Conference Leiden, The Netherlands, 23-25 September 2004. The
author thanks Sven Hemlin and, especially, Robert Tijssen for encouragement and comments on previous
drafts.

References

ADAIR, J. G., VOHRA, N. (2003), The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations. Psychologys unique
response to a crisis. American Psychologist, 58 : 1, 1523.
ADAMS, J. (1998), Benchmarking international research. Nature, 396 : 615618.
BALDI, S., HARGENS, L. L. (1997), Re-examining Prices conjectures on the structure of reference networks:
Results form the special relativity, spatial diffusion modeling and role analysis literatures. Social Studies
of Science, 27 : 669687.
BOTT, D. M., HARGENS, L. L. (1991), Are sociologists publications uncited? Citation rates of journal articles,
chapters, and books. American Sociologist, 22 : 147158.
BOURKE, P. (1997), Discipline Boundaries in the Social Sciences. Canberra, Australia: Academy of the Social
Sciences, Occasional Paper Series 1.
BROADUS, R. N. (1971), The literature of the social sciences: a survey of citation studies. International Social
Sciences Journal, 23 : 236243.
BURNHILL, P. M., TUBBY-HILLE, M. E. (1994), On measuring the relation between social science research
activity and research publication. Research Evaluation, 4 : 130152.
BUTLER, L. (2003), Explaining Australias increased share of ISI publications the effects of a funding
formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32 : 143155.
CLEMENS, E. S., POWELL, W. W., MCILWAINE, K., Okamoto, D. (1995), Careers in print: Books, journals,
and scholarly reputations. American Journal of Sociology, 101 : 433494.
COLE, S. (1983), The hierarchy of sciences? American Journal of Sociology, 89 : 111139.
COZZENS, S. E. (1985), Using the archive: Derek Prices theory of differences among the sciences.
Scientometrics, 7 : 431444.
CRONIN, B., SNYDER, H., ATKINS, H. (1997), Comparative citation rankings of authors in monographic and
journal literature: a study of sociology. Journal of Documentation, 53 : 263273.
CULLARS, J. M. (1998), Citation characteristics of English-language monographs in philosophy. Library &
Information Science Research, 20 : 4168.
DOR, J. C., OJASOO, T., OKUBO, Y., DURAND, T., DUDOGNON, G., MIQUEL, J. (1996), Correspondence
factor analysis of the publication patterns of 48 countries over the period 1981-1992. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 47 : 588602.
ESF (2002), Building a European Citation Index for the Humanities. ESF Communications, 44
(Spring) : 1213.
FINKENSTAEDT, T. (1990), Measuring research performance in the humanities. Scientometrics, 19 : 409417.
FROST, C.O. (1979), The use of citations in literary research. Library Quarterly, 49 : 399414.
GARFIELD, E. (1979), Citation Indexing Its Theory and Applications in Science, Technology and
Humanities. New York: Wiley.
GILLETT, R. (1987), Serious anomalies in the UGC comparative evaluation of the research performance of
psychology departments. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 40 : 4249.
GLNZEL, W. (1996), A bibliometric approach to the social sciences. National research performances in 6
selected social science areas, 1990-1992. Scientometrics, 35 : 291307.

Scientometrics 66 (2006) 97
A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

GLNZEL, W., DEBACKERE, K. (2003), Research insights into the use of bibliometric indicators for social
sciences and humanities. Paper presented at worskhop Bibliometrie als prestatiemaat voor cultuur en
gedragswetenschappen, Brussels, Belgium, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and Arts,
December 10.
GLNZEL, W., SCHOEPFLIN, U. (1994), A stochastic model for the ageing of scientific literature.
Scientometrics, 30 : 4964.
GLNZEL, W., SCHOEPFLIN, U. (1995), A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific
literature in the social sciences. Journal of Information Science, 21 : 3753.
GLNZEL, W., SCHOEPFLIN, U. (1999), A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and the
social sciences. Information Processing and Management, 35 : 3144.
HAGENDIJK, R., PRINS, A. (1984), Referenties en references: onzekerheid, afhankelijkheid en citeernetwerken
in de Nederlandse sociologie. Mens en Maatschappij, 59 : 226251.
HARGENS, L. L. (2000), Using the literature: reference networks, reference contexts, and the social structure
of scholarship. American Sociological Review, 65 : 846865.
HEINZKILL, R. (1980), Characteristics of references in selected scholarly English literary journals. Library
Quarterly, 50 : 352365
HICKS, D. (1999), The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the
bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44 : 193215.
HICKS, D.( 2004), The four literatures of social science. In: H. F. MOED et al., Handbook of Quantitative
Science and Technology Research. Kluwer, pp. 473496.
HICKS, D., POTTER, J. (1991), Sociology of scientific knowledge: A reflexive citation analysis of science
disciplines and disciplining science. Social Studies of Science, 19 : 459501.
INGWERSEN, P. (2000), The international visibility and citation impact of Scandinavian research articles in
selected Social Science fields: The decline of a myth. Scientometrics, 49 : 3961.
KATZ, J. S. (1999), Bibliometric Indicators and the Social Sciences. Report to ESRC. Brighton, UK: SPRU,
University of Sussex.
KYVIK, S. (1988), Internationality of the social sciences: the Norwegian case. International Social Science
Journal, 115 : 163172.
KYVIK, S. (2003), Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 19802000.
Scientometrics, 58 : 3548.
LEWISON, G. (2001), Evaluation of books as research outputs in history of medicine. Research Evaluation,
10 : 8995.
LEYDESDORFF, L. (2003), Can networks of journal-journal citations be used as indicators of change in the
social sciences? Journal of Documentation, 59 : 84104.
LINDHOLM-ROMANTSCHUK, Y., WARNER, J. (1996), The role of monographs in scholarly communication: an
empirical study of philosophy, sociology and economics. Journal of Documentation, 54 : 389404.
LUWEL, M., MOED, H. F., NEDERHOF, A. J., DE SAMBLANX, V., VERBRUGGHEN K., VAN DER WURFF, L. J.
(1999), Towards Indicators of Research Performance in the Social Sciences and Humanities. An
Exploratory Study in the Fields of Law and Linguistics at Flemish Universities. Report of the Flemish
Inter-University Council (V.L.I.R.), Brussels, Belgium / Centre for Science and Technology Studies
(CWTS), Leiden University, the Netherlands / Ministry of the Flemish Community, Brussels, Belgium.
V.L.I.R. Brussels, Belgium.
MEERTENS, R.W., NEDERHOF, A. J., WILKE, H. A. M. (1992), Social psychology in The Netherlands,
19801988. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22 : 93100.
MOED, H. F. (1989), Bibliometric measurement of research performance and Prices theory of differences
among the sciences, Scientometrics, 15 : 473483.
MOED, H. F., LUWEL, M., Nederhof, A. J. (2002), Towards indicators of research performance in the
humanities. Library Trends, 50 : 498520.
MOED, H. F., VAN LEEUWEN, T. N. (1996), Impact factors can mislead. Nature, 381 : 386.
MOED, H. F., GLNZEL, W., SCHMOCH, U. (Eds) (2004), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology
Research. Kluwer.
NEDERHOF, A. J. (1985), Evaluating research output through life work citation counts. Scientometrics,
7 : 2328.

98 Scientometrics 66 (2006)
 A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

NEDERHOF, A. J. (1989), Books and chapters are not to be neglected in measuring research productivity.
American Psychologist, 44 : 734735.
NEDERHOF, A. J. (1995a), A Bibliometric Study of Literature Projects Funded by the NWO Stichting
Literatuurwetenschap. Leiden: report CWTS-95-05.
NEDERHOF (1995b), unpublished data.
NEDERHOF, A. J. (1996), A bibliometric assessment of research council grants in linguistics. Research
Evaluation, 6 : 212.
NEDERHOF, A. J., ERLINGS, C. M. (1993), A Bibliometric Study of Productivity and Impact of Modern
Language and Literature Research in the Netherlands, 19821991. Leiden: report CWTS-93-09.
NEDERHOF, A. J., LUWEL, M., MOED, H. F. (2001), Assessing the quality of scholarly journals in linguistics:
An alternative to citation-based journal impact factors. Scientometrics, 51 : 241265.
NEDERHOF, A. J., MEIJER, R. F. (1995), Development of bibliometric indicators for utility of research to users
in society: Measurement of external knowledge transfer via publications in trade journals.
Scientometrics, 32 : 3748.
NEDERHOF, A. J., MEIJER, R. F., MOED, H. F., VAN RAAN, A. F. J. (1993), Research performance indicators
for university departments: a study of an agricultural university. Scientometrics, 27 : 157178.
NEDERHOF, A. J., MOED, H. F. (1993), Modeling multinational publication: Development of an on-line
fractionation approach to measure national scientific output. Scientometrics, 27 : 3952.
NEDERHOF, A. J., NOYONS, E. C. M. (1990), Trends in Publication and International Co-Publication Activity
in the Social and Behavioral Sciences and the Humanities (19841989). Leiden: report CWTS-90-05.
NEDERHOF, A. J., NOYONS, E. C. M. (1992), International comparison of departments research performance
in the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43 : 249256.
NEDERHOF, A. J., NOYONS, E. C. M. (1992), Assessment of the international standing of university
departments research: A comparison of bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 24 : 393404.
NEDERHOF, A. J., VAN LEEUWEN, T. N., VISSER, M. S. (2000), Bibliometric Profiles of Academic Psychology
Research in the Netherlands. Leiden: report CWTS 2000-05.
NEDERHOF, A. J., VAN RAAN, A. F. J. (1993), A Bibliometric Analysis of six economics research groups: A
comparison with peer review. Research Policy, 22 : 353368.
NEDERHOF A. J., VAN WIJK, E. (1997), Mapping the social and behavioral sciences world-wide: Use of maps
in portfolio analysis of national research efforts. Scientometrics, 40 : 237276.
NEDERHOF, A. J., VAN WIJK, E. (1999), Profiling institutes: Identifying high research performance and social
relevance in the social and behavioral sciences. Scientometrics, 44 : 487506.
NEDERHOF, A. J., ZWAAN, R. A. (1991), Quality judgements of journals as indicators of research performance
in the humanities and the social and behavioral sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 42 : 332340.
NEDERHOF, A. J., ZWAAN, R. A., DE BRUIN, R. E., DEKKER, P. J. (1989), Assessing the usefulness of
bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social sciences. Scientometrics, 15 : 423435.
NOCK, D. A. (2001), Careers in print: Canadian sociological books and their wider impact, 19751992.
Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 26 : 469485.
NORRIS, M., OPPENHEIM C. (2003), Citation counts and the research assessment exercise V. Archaeology and
the 2001 RAE. Journal of Documentation, 59 : 709730.
NOWT (2004), Science and Technology Indicators 2003. Summary. Netherlands Observatory of Science and
Technology, The Hague: CWTS, MERIT.
NOYONS, E. C. M., NEDERHOF, A. J. (1992), Comparing journal impact and scholar's judgements on journals
within a humanities field and a social science field. In: WEINGART, P., SEHRINGER, R., WINTERHAGEN,
M. (Eds), Representations of Science and Technology, Leiden: DSWO press, pp. 200208.
PLETTE, W. (1993), Quantitative Wissenschafsindikatoren in der deutschen Anglistik. Bad Honnef: Bock.
PRICE, D. J. (1963), Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press, New York.
PRICE, D. J. (1970), Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and non-science. In: C. E.
NELSON, D. POLLACK (Eds), Communication Among Scientists and Engineers. Lexington, Mass.,
Lexington books.

Scientometrics 66 (2006) 99
A. J. NEDERHOF: Research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

QUINONES-VIDAL, E., LOPEZ-GARCIA, J. J., PENARANDA-ORTEGA, M., TORTOSA-GILL, F. (2004), The nature
of Social and Personality Psychology as reflected in JPSP, 19652000. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86 : 435452.
RUBIO, A. V. (1992), Scientific production of Spanish Universities in the fields of social sciences and
language. Scientometrics, 24 : 319.
SCHOEPFLIN, U. (1992), Problems of representativity in the Social Sciences Citation Index. In: P. WEINGART,
R. SEHRINGER, M. WINTERHAGER (Eds), Representations of Science and technology. Leiden: DSWO,
pp. 177188.
SCHUBERT, A., GLNZEL, W., BRAUN, T. (1989), Scientometric data files. A comprehensive set of indicators
on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major science fields and subfields 19811985. Scientometrics,
16 : 3478.
SMALL, H. G., CRANE, D. (1979), Specialties and disciplines in science and social science: an examination of
their structure using citation indexes. Scientometrics, 1 : 445461.
THELWALL, M., HARRIES, G. (2004), Do the Web sites of higher rated scholars have significantly more
impact? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55 : 149159.
THOMPSON, J. W. (2002), The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in
literary scholarship. Libri, 52 (3) : 121136.
TIJSSEN, R. J. W., NEDERHOF, A. J., COUPE, T., VISSER, M. S., VAN WIJK, E. (2003), Bibliometric Mapping
of Scholarly Excellence in European Economics. Brussels, Belgium: report to the European Commission.
VAN DER MEULEN, B., LEYDESDORFF, L. (1991), Has the study of philosophy at Dutch universities changed
under economic and political pressures? Science, Technology & Human Values, 16 : 288321.
VAN LEEUWEN, T. N. (2006), The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science
research. Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible. Scientometrics, 66 : 133154.
VAN LEEUWEN, T. N., MOED, H. F. (2001), Development and application of new journal impact measures.
Cortex, 37 : 607610.
VAN LEEUWEN, T. N., VISSER, M. S., MOED, H. F., NEDERHOF, A. J., VAN RAAN, A. F. J. (2003), The holy
grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence.
Scientometrics, 57 : 257280.
VAN RAAN, A. F. J. (Ed.) (1988), Handbook of Quantitative Studies in Science and Technology. Amsterdam:
North Holland/Elsevier Science Publishers.
VAN RAAN, A. F. J. (1998), Assessment of social sciences: The use of advanced bibliometric methods as a
necessary complement of peer review. Research Evaluation, 7 : 26.
VESTERGAARD, E. (2003), Presentation of the European Citation Index in Humanities. Paper presented at
worskhop Bibliometrie als prestatiemaat voor cultuur- en gedragswetenschappen, Brussels, Belgium,
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and Arts, December 10.
VISSER, M. S., RONS, M., VAN DER WURFF, L. J., MOED, H. F., NEDERHOF, A. J. (2003), Bibliometrische
studie van onderzoeksdisciplines aan de Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 19922001. Leiden: CWTSbv, report
2003-03.
VISSER, M. S., MOED, H. F., SPRUIJT, E., NEDERHOF, A. J. (2004), Bibliometrische studie van de Faculteit
Toegepaste Economische Wetenschappen aan de Universiteit Antwerpen 19922001. Leiden: CWTS,
report.
WEBSTER, B. M. (1998), Polish Sociology Citation Index as an example of usage of national citation indexes
in scientometric analysis of social sciences. Journal of Information Science, 24 : 1932.
WINCLAWSKA, B. M. (1996), Polish Sociology Citation Index (principles for creation and first results).
Scientometrics, 35 : 387391.
WILLEMS, J. (2003), Bringing down the barriers public communication should be part of common scientific
practice. Nature, 422 : 470470.
ZWAAN, R. A., NEDERHOF, A. J. (1990), Some aspects of scholarly communication in linguistics: An
empirical study. Language, 66 : 523527.

100 Scientometrics 66 (2006)