...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Aslib Proceedings >Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities?
【24h】

Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities?

机译：在社会科学和人文科学领域的学术交流中，书籍出版物正在消失吗？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history.Design/methodology/approachComprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries.FindingsAs expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH.Research limitations/implicationsThe results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH.Originality/valueThe authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH.
机译：目的 n本文的目的是分析五个欧洲国家（即法兰德斯（比利时），芬兰，挪威，波兰和斯洛文尼亚）在社会科学和人文科学（SSH）领域中学术书籍出版物所占份额的演变。除了涵盖整个社会科学和人文科学的综合结果之外，作者还关注两个公认的领域，即经济学，商业和历史。 n设计/方法论/方法 nSSH学术成果的全面覆盖数据库已经建立在法兰德斯（VABB-SHW），芬兰（VIRTA），挪威（NSI），波兰（PBN）和斯洛文尼亚（COBISS）成立。通过这些系统，可以追踪这些国家/地区在学术出版物总量中专着和书籍章节的份额。 n发现 n正如所料，人文学科和社会科学领域的学术专着和书籍章节的份额之间存在很大差异科学领域和五个国家之间的研究。在经济学和商业以及历史上，结果显示出类似的基于现场的差异以及国家差异。大多数年度和整体变化都相当有限。所提供的数据表明SSH并不会消除图书出版。 n研究的局限/含意 n本文所提供的结果表明，波兰的学术评价体系对学术出版模式产生了重大影响，而在其他国家/地区，这种变化仅体现出来了略。作者得出的结论是，基于绩效的研究资助系统（PRFS）之类的概括对于书刊出版是不利的。研究评估系统在SSH中起着至关重要的认识和社会作用，因此需要充分考虑书籍出版。 n原创性/价值 n作者从欧洲的五个综合报道数据库中提供有关专着和书籍章节的数据，并对数据进行分析考虑到有关研究评估系统对学术书籍出版的有害影响的辩论。作者表明，没有理由怀疑SSH中学术书籍出版的急剧下降。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号