A bibliometric study of productivity and impact of modern language and literature research

Research Evaluation

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 117-129

  Nederhof, Anton J ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959839504     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876508     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Butler, L and M S Visser 2006. Extending citation analysis to nonsource items. Scientometrics, 66(2), 327-343.
2. Cullars, J M 1998. Citation characteristics of English-language monographs in philosophy: the hierarchy of the sciences? Library and Information Science Research, 20, 41-68.
3. Kyvik, S 2003. Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980-2000. Scientometrics, 58, 35-48.
4. Larivière, V, E Archambault and Y Gingras 2006. The place of serials in referencing practices: comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 997-1004.
5. Larivière, V, B Macaluso, E Archambault and Y Gingras 2010. Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations. Research Evaluation, 19(1), March, 45-53.
6. Linmans, A J M 2010. Why with bibliometrics the humanities does not need to be the weakest link: indicators for research evaluation based on citations, library holdings, and productivity measures. Scientometrics, 83(2), 337-354.
7. Merton, R K 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
8. Moed, H F 2005. Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
9. Moed, H F, R E de Bruin and T N van Leeuwen 1995. New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33(3), 381-425.
10. Moed, H F, M Luwel and A J Nederhof 2002. Towards indicators of research performance in the humanities. Library Trends, 50(3), 498-520.
11. Nederhof, A J 1996. A bibliometric assessment of research council grants in linguistics. Research Evaluation, 6(1), 2-12.
12. Nederhof, A J 2006. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: a review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81-100.
13. Nederhof, A J and C M Erlings 1993. A bibliometric study of productivity and impact of modern language and literature research in the Netherlands, 1982-1991. Leiden: Report CWTS-93-09.
14. Nederhof, A J and E C M Noyons 1992a. International comparison of departments' research performance in the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 249-256.
15. Nederhof, A J and E C M Noyons 1992b. Assessment of the international standing of university departments' research: a comparison of bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 24, 393-404.
16. Nederhof, A J and R A Zwaan 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, 332-340.
17. Nederhof, A J, R A Zwaan, R E de Bruin and P J Dekker 1989. Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social sciences.Scientometrics, 15, 423-435.
18. Nederhof, A J, M Luwel and H F Moed 2001. Assessing the quality of scholarly journals in linguistics: an alternative to citation-based journal impact factors. Scientometrics, 51(1), 241-265.
19. Nederhof, A J, T van Leeuwen and A F J van Raan 2010. Highly cited non-journal publications in political science, economics and psychology: a first exploration. Scientometrics, 83, 363-374.
20. Noyons, E C M and A J Nederhof 1989. International Comparisons of Departments' Research Performance and Assessment of the General Public in the Humanities and the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Leiden: Center for Science and Technology Studies.
21. Thompson, J W 2002. The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship. Libri, 52(3), 121-136.
22. Willems, J 2003. Bringing down the barriers: public communication should be part of common scientific practice. Nature, 422, 470.
23. Zwaan, R A and A J Nederhof 1990. Some aspects of scholarly communication in linguistics: an empirical study. Language, 66, 523-527.