Making visible the invisible through the analysis of acknowledgements in the humanities

Aslib Journal of Information Management

Volumn 69, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 576-590

  A Díaz Faes, Adrian ^a   Bordons, María ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE VALÈNCIA   (Spain)

^b CSIC   (Spain)

^c INSTITUTO DE HISTORIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Acknowledgements; Contributorship; Humanities; Reward system of science; Reward triangle; Sociology of science; Super citations

Indexed keywords

SOCIAL SCIENCES;

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS; CONTRIBUTORSHIP; HUMANITIES; REWARD SYSTEMS; REWARD TRIANGLE; SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE; SUPER-CITATIONS;

PUBLISHING;

EID: 85032366211     PISSN: 20503806     EISSN: 20503814     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0008     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Baird, L.M. and Oppenheim, C. (1994), “Do citations matter?”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 2-15.
2. Beaver, D. de B. and Rosen, R. (1979), “Studies in scientific collaboration: part III – professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship”, Scientometrics, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 231-245.
3. Bordons, M. and Gómez, I. (2000), “Collaboration networks in science”, in Cronin, B. and Atkins, H.B. (Eds), The Web of Knowledge. A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield, ASIS Monograph, Medford, NJ, pp. 197-213.
4. Borgman, C. (2007), Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
5. Bornmann, L. and Daniel, H.D. (2008), “What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 45-80.
6. Bourdieu, P. (1988), Homo Academicus, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
7. Chubin, D.E. (1975), “Trusted assessorship in science: a relation in need of data”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 362-367.
8. Claxton, L.D. (2005), “Scientific authorship part 2: history, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines”, Mutation Research, Vol. 589 No. 1, pp. 31-45.
9. Costas, R. and van Leeuwen, T.N. (2012), “Approaching the ‘reward triangle’: general analysis of the presence of funding acknowledgments and ‘peer interactive communication’ in scientific publications”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 63 No. 8, pp. 1647-1661.
10. Cronin, B. (1991), “Let the credits roll: a preliminary examination of the role played by mentors and trusted assessors in disciplinary formation”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 227-239.
11. Cronin, B. (1995), The Scholar’s Courtesy: The Role of Acknowledgments in the Primary Communication Process, Taylor Graham, Los Angeles, CA.
12. Cronin, B. (2001), “Hyperauthorship: a postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 558-569.
13. Cronin, B. and Weaver, S. (1995), “The praxis of acknowledgement: from bibliometrics to influmetrics”, Revista Española de Documentación Científica, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 172-177.
14. Cronin, B. and Weaver-Wozniak, S. (1992), “An online acknowledgements index: rationale and feasibility”, Proceedings of the 16th International Online Meeting, Learned Information, Oxford, pp. 281-290.
15. Cronin, B., McKenzie, G. and Rubio, L. (1993), “The norms of acknowledgement in four humanities and social sciences disciplines”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 29-43.
16. Cronin, B., McKenzie, G. and Stiffler, M. (1992), “Patterns of acknowledgement”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 107-122.
17. Cronin, B., Shaw, D. and La Barre, K. (2003), “A cast of thousands: co-authorship and sub-authorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly literature of psychology and philosophy”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 54 No. 9, pp. 855-871.
18. Cronin, B., Shaw, D. and La Barre, K. (2004), “Visible, less visible, and invisible work: patterns of collaboration in 20th century chemistry”, Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 160-168.
19. Cronin, B., McKenzie, G., Rubio, L. and Weaver-Wozniak, S. (1993), “Accounting for influence: acknowledgments in contemporary sociology”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 406-410.
20. Deegan, M. and McCarty, W. (2012), Collaborative Research in the Digital Humanities, Ashgate, Farnham.
21. Den Hertog, P., Jager, C.J., Vankan, A., Te Velde, R. Veldkamp, J., Aksnes, D.W., Sivertsen, G., Van Leeuwen, T. and Van Wijk, E. (2014), “Scholarly publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities and their relationship with research assessment”, Thematic Paper No. 2, Science, Technology & Innovation Indicators, Utrecht, pp. 1-26, available at: http://dialogic.nl/documents/other/sti2_themepaper2.pdf
22. Desrochers, N., Paul-Hus, A. and Larivière, V. (2016), “The angle sum theory: exploring the literature on acknowledgments in scholarly communication”, in Sugimoto C.R. (Ed.), Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, pp. 225-247.
23. Díaz‐Faes, A.A. and Bordons, M. (2014), “Acknowledgments in scientific publications: presence in Spanish science and text patterns across disciplines”, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 65 No. 9, pp. 1834-1849, doi: 10.1002/asi.23081.
24. Edge, D. (1979), “Quantitative measures of communication in science: a critical review”, History of Science, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 102-134.
25. Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C.R. and Didegah, F. (2012), “Mapping world scientific collaboration: authors, institutions, and countries”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 323-335, doi: 10.1002/asi.21688.
26. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage Publications, London.
27. Giles, C.L. and Councill, I.G. (2004), “Who gets acknowledged: measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 101 No. 51, pp. 17599-17604.
28. Heffner, A.G. (1981), “Funded research, multiple authorship, and subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines”, Scientometrics, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 5-12.
29. Hellqvist, B. (2010), “Referencing in the humanities and its implications for citation analysis”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 310-318.
30. Hemlin, S. and Gustafsson, M. (1996), “Research production in the arts and humanities”, Scientometrics, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 417-432.
31. Hyland, K. (2003), “Dissertation acknowledgments: the anatomy of a Cinderella genre”, Written Communication, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 242-268.
32. Hyland, K. (2004), “‘Graduates’ gratitude: the generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements”, English for Specific purposes, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 303-324.
33. Kassirer, J.P. and Angell, M.A. (1991), “On authorship and acknowledgments”, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 325 No. 21, pp. 1510-1512.
34. Kostoff, R.N. (1995), “Federal research impact assessment – axioms, approaches, applications”, Scientometrics, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 136-145.
35. McCain, K.W. (1991), “Communication, competition, and secrecy: the production and dissemination of research-related information in genetics”, Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 491-516.
36. Mackintosh, K.H. (1972), “Acknowledgments patterns in sociology”, PhD dissertation, University of Oregon, Oregon.
37. Marusic, A., Bosnjak, L. and Jeroncic, A. (2011), “A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines”, PloS One, Vol. 6 No. 9, pp. 1-17.
38. Merton, R.K. (1957), “Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 635-659.
39. Merton, R.K. (1968), “The Matthew effect in science”, Science, Vol. 159 No. 3810, pp. 56-63.
40. Merton, R.K. (1973), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL.
41. Moed, H.F. and Halevi, G. (2015), “Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact”, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 66 No. 10, pp. 1988-2002, doi: 10.1002/asi.23314.
42. Ochsner, M., Hug, S.E. and Daniel, H.D. (2013), “Four types of research in the humanities: setting the stage for research quality criteria in the humanities”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 79-92.
43. Ossenblok, T.L.B., Verleysen, F.T. and Engels, T.C.E. (2014), “Coauthorship of journal articles and book chapters in the social sciences and humanities (2000-2010)”, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 882-897.
44. Patel, N. (1973), “Collaboration in the professional growth of American sociology”, Social Science Information, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 77-92.
45. Paul-Hus, A., Desrochers, N. and Costas, R. (2016), “Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgement data in web of science”, Scientometrics, Vol. 108 No. 1, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-1953-y.
46. Paul-Hus, A., Mongeon, P., Sainte-Marie, M. and Larivière, V. (2017), “The sum of it all: revealing collaboration patterns by combining authorship and acknowledgements”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 80-87.
47. Paul-Hus, A., Díaz-Faes, A.A., Desrochers, N., Costas, R., Sainte-Marie, M., Macaluso, B. and Larivière, V. (2016), “Beyond funding: what can acknowledgements reveal about credit distribution in science?”, in Rafols, I., Molas-Gallart, J., Castro-Martínez, E. and Wooley, R. (Eds), Proceedings of the Science and Technology Indicators Conference, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, pp. 598-606.
48. Rennie, D., Flanagin, A. and Yank, V. (2000), “The contributions of authors”, The Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 284 No. 1, pp. 89-91.
49. Rigby, J. (2011), “Systematic grant and funding body acknowledgment data for publications: new dimensions and new controversies for research policy and evaluation”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 365-375.
50. Salager‐Meyer, F., Ariza, M.Á.A. and Berbesí, M.P. (2009), “Backstage solidarity in Spanish and English‐written medical research papers: publication context and the acknowledgment paratext”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 307-317.
51. Tiew, W.S. and Sen, B.K. (2002), “Acknowledgement patterns in research articles: a bibliometric study based on journal of natural rubber research 1986-1997”, Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 43-56.
52. Vinkler, P. (2010), The Evaluation of Research by Scientometric Indicators, Chandos Publishing, Cambridge.
53. Wager, E. (2009), “Recognition, reward and responsibility: why the authorship of scientific papers matters”, Maturitas, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 109-112.
54. Whitley, R. (1984), The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
55. Wuchty, S., Jones, B.F. and Uzzi, B. (2007), “The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge”, Science, Vol. 316 No. 5827, pp. 1036-1039.
56. Xu, X., Tan, A.M. and Zhao, S.X. (2015), “Funding ratios in social science: the perspective of countries/territories level and comparison with natural sciences”, Scientometrics, Vol. 104 No. 3, pp. 673-684.
57. Zuccala, A. (2006), “Modeling the invisible college”, Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 152-168.
58. Bornmann, L. and Leydesdorff, L. (2014), “Scientometrics in a changing research landscape”, Embo Reports, Vol. 15 No. 12, pp. 1228-1232.