Advertisement

Minerva

, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 47–66 | Cite as

The Prestige of Social Scientists in Spain and France: An Examination of Their h-Index Values Using Scopus and Google Scholar

  • Marcelo P. DabósEmail author
  • Ernesto R. Gantman
  • Carlos J. Fernández Rodríguez
Article

Abstract

We analyze the prestige of 1,500 scholars in economics, sociology, and management who have Spanish and French institutional affiliations operationalized by their h-index in Scopus and Google Scholar. We use a negative binomial count model to examine how some individual factors affect the h-index from both databases. The results show a non-monotonic relationship between the researchers’ career length and their h-index. There is a positive and statistically significant relationship between total research output and the h-index. The share of publications in English over total publications has also a positive and statistically significant effect on the h-index, except in a single case, while the share of publications in other foreign languages does not have such effect. Finally, we found that the effects of the number of citations received by documents in English (international impact) and by those in the vernacular language (local or regional impact) on the h-index vary according to the database, the country, and the discipline in question.

Keywords

Research output Scholarly recognition Citation analysis Social sciences Spain France 

Supplementary material

11024_2018_9358_MOESM1_ESM.doc (116 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 116 kb)

References

  1. Abend, Gabriel. 2016. Styles of sociological thought: Sociologies, epistemologies, and the Mexican and U.S. quests for truth. Sociological Theory 24(1): 1–41.Google Scholar
  2. Aggeri, Franck. 2016. L’obsession de la productivité et la fabrique du chercheur publiant. Le Libellio d’Aegis 12(2): 21–32.Google Scholar
  3. Allison, Paul, and J. Scott Long. 1990. Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review 55: 469–478.Google Scholar
  4. Archambault, Eric, Etienne Vignola-Gagne, Grégoire Cote, Vincent Lariviere, and Yves Gingras. 2006. Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics 68(3): 329–342.Google Scholar
  5. Beigel, Fernanda. 2014. Publishing from the periphery: Structural heterogeneity and segmented circuits. The evaluation of scientific publications for tenure in Argentina’s CONICET. Current Sociology 62(5): 743–765.Google Scholar
  6. Beigel, Fernanda, and Maximiliano Salatino. 2015. Circuitos segmentados de consagración académica: las revistas de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas en la Argentina. Información, cultura y sociedad 32: 11–36.Google Scholar
  7. Bianco, Mariela, Natalia Gras, and Judith Sutz. 2016. Academic Evaluation: Universal Instrument? Tool for Development? Minerva 54(4): 399–421.Google Scholar
  8. Blau, Judith. 1976. Scientific Recognition: Academic Context and Professional Role. Social Studies of Science 6(3/4): 533–545.Google Scholar
  9. Bornmann, Lutz, Andreas Thor, Werner Marx, and Hermann Schier. 2016. The application of bibliometrics to research evaluation in the humanities and social sciences: An exploratory study using normalized Google Scholar data for the publications of a research institute. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67(11): 2778–2789.Google Scholar
  10. Clemens, Elisabeth S., Walter W. Powell, Kris McIlwaine, and Dina Okamoto. 1995. Careers in print: Books, journals, and scholarly reputations. American Journal of Sociology 101(2): 433–494.Google Scholar
  11. Cole, Jonathan, and Stephen Cole. 1971. Measuring the quality of sociological research: Problems in the use of the Science Citation Index. The American Sociologist 6(1): 23–29.Google Scholar
  12. Cole, Jonathan, and Stephen Cole. 1973. Social Stratification In Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Courtault, Jean-Michel, Naila Hayek, Eric Rimbaux, and Tong Zhu. 2010. Research in economics and management in France: A bibliometric study using the h-index. Journal of Socio-Economics 39(2): 329–337.Google Scholar
  14. Costas, Rodrigo, and María Bordons. 2007. The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics 1(3): 193–203.Google Scholar
  15. Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio, Enrique Orduña-Malea, Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, and Rafael Ruiz-Pérez. 2014. H Index Scholar: el índice h de los profesores de las universidades públicas españolas en humanidades y ciencias sociales. El profesional de la información 23(1): 87–94.Google Scholar
  16. Doğan, G. Güleda, İpec Şencan, and Yaşar Tonta. 2016. Does dirty data affect Google Scholar citations? Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 53: 1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301098.Google Scholar
  17. Etxebarria, Goio, and Mikel Gomez-Uranga. 2010. Use of Scopus and Google Scholar to measure social sciences production in four major Spanish universities. Scientometrics 82(2): 333–349.Google Scholar
  18. Fernández Esquinas, Manuel. 2016. Las revistas de ciencias sociales en los sistemas de I+D. Revista Española de Sociología 25(3): 427–442.Google Scholar
  19. Financial Times. 2015. European Business School Rankings 2015. http://rankings.ft.com/pdf/european-business-school-rankings-2015.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2016.
  20. Frandsen, Tobbe F., and Jeppe Nicolaisen. 2008. Intradisciplinary differences in database coverage and the consequences for bibliometric research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(10): 1570–1581.Google Scholar
  21. Gantman, Ernesto R., and Carlos J. Fernández Rodríguez. 2013. La profesión académica en Argentina y España y su productividad científica en ciencias sociales. Revista de Ciencias Sociales 19(3): 500–510.Google Scholar
  22. Gantman, Ernesto R., and Carlos J. Fernández Rodríguez. 2016. Literature segmentation in management and organization studies: The case of Spanish-speaking countries (2000–10). Research Evaluation 25(4): 461–471.Google Scholar
  23. García Pérez, Miguel A. 2010. Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar: A case study for the computation of h indices in Psychology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(10): 2070–2085.Google Scholar
  24. Halevi, Gali, Henk Moed, and Judit Bar-Ilan. 2017. Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics 11(3): 823–834.Google Scholar
  25. Hanafi, Sari. 2011. University systems in the Arab East: Publish globally and perish locally vs. publish locally and perish globally. Current Sociology 59(3): 291–309.Google Scholar
  26. Harzing, Anne-Wil. 2010. The Publish or Perish Book: Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Melbourne: Tarma Software Research.Google Scholar
  27. Harzing, Anne-Wil, and R. van der Wal. 2008. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8(1): 61–73.Google Scholar
  28. Hicks, Diana. 1999. The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics 44(2): 193–215.Google Scholar
  29. Hicks, Diana. 2005. The four literatures of social science. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research, eds. Henk F. Moed, Wolfgang Glänzel, and Ulrich Schmoch, 473–493. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Hirsch, Jorge. 2005. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(46): 16569–16572.Google Scholar
  31. Hirsch, Jorge, and Gualberto Buela-Casal. 2014. The meaning of the h-index. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 14(2): 161–164.Google Scholar
  32. I-UGR. 2014. Ranking of Spanish Universities (5th. edition) http://www.rankinguniversidades.es. Accessed 5 Apr 2016.
  33. Jacsó, Peter. 2005. Google Scholar: The pros and the cons. Online Information Review 29(2): 208–214.Google Scholar
  34. Jedlicki, Fanny, and Romain Pudal. 2018. Introduction. Droit d’entrée dans la carrière académique: à quel prix? Socio-logos 13. https://journals.openedition.org/socio-logos/3194. Accessed 20 May 2018.
  35. Jiménez-Contreras, E., Rafael Ruiz-Pérez, and Emilio Delgado López-Cózar. 2002. Spanish personal name variations in national and international biomedical databases: Implications for information retrieval and bibliometric studies. Journal of the Medical Library Association 90(4): 411–430.Google Scholar
  36. Karpik, Lucien. 2012. “Performance”, “excellence” et création scientifique. Revue Française de Socio-Économie 10: 113–135.Google Scholar
  37. Lange, Lydia, and P.A. Frensch. 2006. Gaining scientific recognition by position: Does editorship increase citation rates? Scientometrics 44(3): 459–486.Google Scholar
  38. Masip, Pere. 2011. Efecto Aneca: producción española en comunicaciones en el Social Science Citation Index. Anuario ThinkEPI 5: 206–210.Google Scholar
  39. Orduña-Malea, Enrique, Alberto Martín-Martín, Juan M. Ayllón, and Emilio Delgado López-Cózar. 2016. La revolución Google Scholar. Destapando la caja de Pandora académica. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar
  40. Pontille, David, and Didier Torny. 2010. Revues qui comptent, revues qu’on compte: produire des classements en économie et gestion. Revue de la régulation (8). https://journals.openedition.org/regulation/8881. Accessed 22 May 2018.
  41. Scimago. 2017. Scimago Journal and Country Rank. http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=3300. Accessed 2 June 2017.
  42. Suárez-Ortega, Magdalena, Elisa García-Mingo, and José Ruiz San Román. 2012. When Español is not enough: research, write, translate and publish or … perish. International Journal of Leadership in Education 15(4): 463–482.Google Scholar
  43. Sztompka, Piotr. 2009. One Sociology or Many? In The ISA handbook of diverse sociological traditions, ed. Sujata Patel, 21–39. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Waltman, Ludo, and Nees J. van Eck. 2012. The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 63(2): 406–415.Google Scholar
  45. Youtie, Jan, Juan Rogers, Thomas Heinze, Philip Shapirad, and Li Tange. 2013. Career-based influences on scientific recognition in the United States and Europe: Longitudinal evidence from curriculum vitae data. Research Policy 42(8): 1341–1355.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CENTRUM Graduate Business SchoolPontificia Universidad Católica del PerúLimaPeru
  2. 2.Facultad de Ciencias EconómicaUniversidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.Escuela de Posgrado en NegociosUniversidad de BelgranoBuenos AiresArgentina
  4. 4.Departamento de Sociología, Facultad CC. EconómicasUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations