Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.029227406 = product of:
  0.05845481 = sum of:
    0.05845481 = product of:
      0.11690962 = sum of:
        0.11690962 = weight(_text_:publishing in 11) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11690962 = score(doc=11,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.46747392 = fieldWeight in 11, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=11)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We 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.

0.023864077 = product of:
  0.047728155 = sum of:
    0.047728155 = product of:
      0.09545631 = sum of:
        0.09545631 = weight(_text_:publishing in 2037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09545631 = score(doc=2037,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.38169086 = fieldWeight in 2037, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2037)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is a publisher ranking study based on a citation data grant from Elsevier, specifically, book titles cited in Scopus history journals (2007-2011) and matching metadata from WorldCat® (i.e., OCLC numbers, ISBN codes, publisher records, and library holding counts). Using both resources, we have created a unique relational database designed to compare citation counts to books with international library holdings or libcitations for scholarly book publishers. First, we construct a ranking of the top 500 publishers and explore descriptive statistics at the level of publisher type (university, commercial, other) and country of origin. We then identify the top 50 university presses and commercial houses based on total citations and mean citations per book (CPB). In a third analysis, we present a map of directed citation links between journals and book publishers. American and British presses/publishing houses tend to dominate the work of library collection managers and citing scholars; however, a number of specialist publishers from Europe are included. Distinct clusters from the directed citation map indicate a certain degree of regionalism and subject specialization, where some journals produced in languages other than English tend to cite books published by the same parent press. Bibliometric rankings convey only a small part of how the actual structure of the publishing field has evolved; hence, challenges lie ahead for developers of new citation indices for books and bibliometricians interested in measuring book and publisher impacts.

0.017338289 = product of:
  0.034676578 = sum of:
    0.034676578 = product of:
      0.069353156 = sum of:
        0.069353156 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069353156 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

0.01687445 = product of:
  0.0337489 = sum of:
    0.0337489 = product of:
      0.0674978 = sum of:
        0.0674978 = weight(_text_:publishing in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0674978 = score(doc=5226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 5226, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Imprint

Cambridge, MA : Elsevier, Chandos Publishing