Abstract
While the idea that books are a fundamental channel of scientific communication for SSH scholars is recognized, little is known about the motivations that lead scholars to select books among various communication channels, and within books, among formats, audiences, and publishers. The chapter presents an analysis of publication data in two Italian universities (Ca′ Foscari and Macerata), integrated with qualitative data based on a survey and two focus groups. A rich set of findings sheds light on the various dimensions of the importance of books, hence on the need for an adapted evaluation.
This chapter is based on the project RobinBa (The Role of Books In Non-Bibliometric Areas), supported by Anvur with Call for proposal no. 1/2014.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Notes
- 1.
See the following link for a discussion in English: http://vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?idsekce=695512
- 2.
The SPI database is accessible at: http://ilia.cchs.csic.es/SPI/index.html
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
For instance, area 10 has a stronger preference for repositories and posters, while area 11 makes more use of exhibition material. The latter is obviously discipline specific, the other two are less clear.
References
Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU), Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). (2014). Standard evaluation protocol 2015–2021: Protocol for research assessments in the Netherlands. https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/standard-evaluation-protocol-2015-2021
Dolan, C. (2007). The evaluation and benchmarking of humanities research in Europe. Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK. http://heranet.info/system/files/HERAJRPdocuments/Deliverables/d4.2.1_hera_final_report_on_evaluation_and_benchmarking_of_h.pdf
Engels, T., Ossenblok, T., & Spruyt, E. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0680-2.
Galleron, I. (2016). Enabling the SSH. PEN: Science & Technology, 19, 75–77.
Giménez-Toledo, E. (2016). Assessment of journal & book publishers in the humanities and social sciences in Spain. In M. Ochsner, S. Hug, & H. D. Daniel (Eds.), Research assessment in the humanities. Towards criteria and procedures. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_8.
Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., & Tejada-Artigas, C. M. (2015a). Review of national and international initiatives on books and book publishers assessment. El profesional de la información, 24(6), 705–716.
Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., & Tejada-Artigas, C. M. (2015b). Scholarly publishers’ indicators: Prestige, specialization, and review systems of scholarly book publishers. El profesional de la información, 24(6), 855–860.
Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., Engels, T., Ingwersen, P., Polonen, J., Sivertsen, G., Verleysen, F., & Zuccala, A. (2016). Taking scholarly books into account: Current developments in five european countries. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1886-5.
ISBN Agency. (2012). ISBN users’ manual: International edition. Sixth Edition. https://www.isbn-international.org/sites/default/files/ISBN%20Manual%202012%20-corr.pdf
Mutz, R., Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2013). Types of research output profiles: A multilevel latent class analysis of the Austrian science fund’s final project report data. Research Evaluation, 22, 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs038.
Ochsner, M., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H. D. (2013). Four types of research in the humanities: Setting the stage for research quality criteria in the humanities. Research Evaluation, 22(2), 79–92.
Ochsner, M., Hug, S., & Daniel, H. D. (Eds.). (2016). Research assessment in the humanities. Towards criteria and procedures. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4.
Office of the Government of the Czech Republic. (2013). Methodology of evaluation of research organizations and evaluation of finished programmes (valid for years 2013–2015). http://vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?idsekce=695512. Accessed 14 July 2017.
REF. (2012). Panel criteria and working methods REF 01 12. http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/panelcriteriaandworkingmethods/01_12.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2017.
Royal Dutch Academy (KNAW). (2011). Quality indicators for research in the humanities. https://www.knaw.nl/shared/resources/actueel/publicaties/pdf/quality-indicators-for-research-in-the-humanities. Accessed 14 July 2017.
Sivertsen, G. (2015). Patterns of internationalization and criteria for research assessment in the social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1845-1.
Vincent, N., & Wickham, C. (Eds.). (2013). Debating open access. London: The British Academy.
Williams, G., & Galleron, I. (2016). Bottom up from the bottom: A new outlook on research evaluation for the SSH in France. In M. Ochsner, S. Hug, & H. D. Daniel (Eds.), (2016) Research assessment in the humanities. Towards criteria and procedures. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_14.
Wilsden, J. (2015). The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. HEFCE. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/year/2015/metrictide/. Accessed 14 July 2017.
Wouters, P. (2014). The new Dutch research evaluation protocol. The Citation Culture. https://citationculture.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/the-new-dutch-research-evaluation-protocol/.
Zaccai, E., Timmermans, B., Hudon, M., Clerbaux, B., Leclercq, B., & Bersini, H. (2016). Penser la science: L’évaluation de la recherche en question(s). Bruxelles: Académie royale des Sciences/des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Annex 1: Broad Categories of Outputs: Aggregation of VQR Categories in ROBINBA Categories
VQR categories | ROBINBA typology |
|---|---|
1.01 Monograph or scientific treatise | Monograph or scientific treatise |
1.02 Critical edition of books or excavations | Critical edition of books or excavations |
1.03 Scheda bibliografica | |
1.04 Indice | |
1.05 Bibliografia | |
1.06 Pubblicazione di fonti inedite | |
1.07 Commento scientifico | |
1.08 Book translation | Book translation |
1.09 Tesi di Dottorato | |
2.1 Paper in journal | Paper in journal |
2.2 Review in journal | Review in journal |
2.4 Scheda bibliografica | |
2.5 Abstract in Rivista | |
2.6 Traduzione in Rivista | |
3.1 Chapter in book | Chapter in book |
3.2 Preface/Postface | |
3.3 Brief introduction | |
3.4 Entry in dictionary or encyclopedia | Entry in dictionary or encyclopedia |
3.5 Traduzione in Volume | |
3.6 Recensione in Volume | |
3.7 Schede di Catalogo, repertorio o corpus | |
4.1 Paper in proceedings | Paper in proceedings |
4.2 Abstract in proceedings | |
4.3 Poster in Atti di convegno | |
5.1 Curatorship | Curatorship |
7.01 Working paper | |
7.02 Rapporto di ricerca | |
7.03 Catalogo di Mostra | |
7.07 Performance | |
7.08 Mostra | |
7.09 Esposizione | |
7.13 Banca dati | |
7.14 Software | |
7.16 Other | Other products |
All “neglected” forms of publications (scheda bibliografica, indice, etc.) were grouped under the “Other products” category (which includes, naturally, the “other” category from VQR).
Annex 2
Annex 3: Questionnaire in English
-
1.
Please tell us all the forms of dissemination you can think of, in addition to those reported below.
-
2.
Which are your usual dissemination channels?
-
3.
Is there any reason why you are using this/these channel/s instead of others?
-
4.
When do you think books are an appropriate way of dissemination?
-
5.
Please quote all types of books you can think of.
-
6.
What is a good publishing house?
-
[Existence of a thorough peer-review procedure]
-
[Well defined publishing profile]
-
[Existence of specific series]
-
[Good reputation of the series coordinators]
-
[Good reputation of the scientific committees]
-
[Distribution of books (presence in international libraries and book stores)]
-
[Transparency of publishing procedure]
-
[Open access facilities]
-
-
7.
Could you list 5 publishers you consider good in your field?
-
8.
Why do you choose a publisher as opposed to another?
-
[National/international good reputation]
-
[National/international distribution]
-
[Facility to publish with the selected publisher]
-
[Existence of a thorough peer-review procedure]
-
[Correspondence between your topics and publisher’s series]
-
[Open access facilities]
-
[Other, please specify]
-
-
9.
Could you list the publishers you have published with?
-
10.
How much feedback did you get during the publication process?
-
11.
What would make your work easier when publishing a book?
-
12.
What are the criteria adopted by your university /institution to value books?
-
13.
In your department, how is a book weighed compared to an article or a book chapter?
-
14.
In your university, how is a book weighed compared to an article or a book chapter?
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Williams, G., Basso, A., Galleron, I., Lippiello, T. (2018). More, Less or Better: The Problem of Evaluating Books in SSH Research. In: Bonaccorsi, A. (eds) The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68553-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68554-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)