|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Cioni, Martina; Federico, Giovanni; Vasta, Michelangelo |
| Abstract: | Economic history is back in fashion among economists, both in its traditional version, focusing on the economics of the past, and in a new version, dealing with the persistent effect of events in the past upon the present. Economic history is said to be increasingly integrated into economics. We systematically explore this issue with a comprehensive database of 3,286 economic history articles published from 2001 to 2018 in top economic history journals and in thirteen leading economics journals. We argue, however, that this integration is more limited than is widely assumed. The share of economic history articles in economics journals has increased very little, cross-citations are limited and only a small minority of authors publish in both economics and economic history journals. Furthermore, we show that many economists adopt a radically different approach, dealing with the persistent effect of events of the past up to the present rather than looking at the economic life in the past. In the second part of the paper, we measure the citational success of articles by publication outlet (economic history vs. economics journals) and by the nature of the work ("traditional" economic history vs. "persistence studies"). We show that publishing in the top five economics journals, when compared to publishing in economic history journals, substantially increases the number of citations, while the gap between the latter and other economics journals is much smaller. Finally, we speculate about the possible future evolution of the field. |
| Keywords: | economic history; economics journals |
| JEL: | N01 |
| Date: | 2019–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:14192&r=all |
| By: | Osório, António (António Miguel) |
| Abstract: | Collaboration among researchers is becoming increasingly common, which raises a large number of scientometrics questions for which there is not a clear and generally accepted answer. For instance, what value should be given to a two-author or three- author publication with respect to a single-author publication? This paper uses axiomatic analysis and proposes a practical method to compute the expected value of an n-authors publication that takes into consideration the added value induced by collaboration in contexts in which there is no prior or ex-ante information about the publication's potential merits or scientific impact. The only information required is the number of authors. We compared the obtained theoretical values with the empirical values based on a large dataset from the Web of Science database. We found that the theoretical values are very close to the empirical values for some disciplines, but not for all. This observation provides support in favor of the method proposed in this paper. We expect that our findings can help researchers and decision- makers to choose more effective and fair counting methods that take into account the benefits of collaboration. Keywords: Co-authorship; Counting methods; Publication value; Axiomatic analysis; Bibliometrics. JEL classification: C65, D04. |
| Keywords: | Bibliometria, 00 - Ciència i coneixement. Investigació. Cultura. Humanitats, 02 - Biblioteconomia. Documentació, |
| Date: | 2019 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:urv:wpaper:2072/376026&r=all |
| By: | Moustafa, Khaled |
| Abstract: | Although institutional affiliation is not mandatory in scholarly publishing, a new trend of multiple and simultaneous affiliations, which I'll call "octopus affiliations" or "octaffiliations" in short, is increasingly noticeable as a distorted consequence of academic ranking and evaluation systems. Institutions offer financial and/or technical supports to authors whose contributions in turn are used as a hallmark of productivity, influence, visibility and reputation of their institutions at national and international levels. While it is understandable that an author can be affiliated with one or two institutions at a time, multiple and simultaneous affiliations on the other hand are hardly realistic. |
| Date: | 2020–07–18 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:arabix:2wz96&r=all |
| By: | Vit Machacek (Institute of Economic Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University Opletalova 26, 110 00, Prague, Czech Republic; CERGE-EI, Politickych veznu 7, 110 00 Prague, Czech Republic) |
| Abstract: | The scientific community faces an everlasting pressure to publish internationally. This study measures the tendency to publish in globalized journals on a large dataset of journals indexed in the Scopus database. Based on data on 34 964 journals indexed in the Scopus Source List (Scopus 2018), we derived seven globalization indicators. These were subsequently scaled-up to the level of 174 countries and 27 disciplines between 2005 and 2017. The methodology draws from the pioneering work of Zitt and Bassecoulard (1998; 1999). The paper is accompanied by the interactive publication available at http://www.globalizationofscience.com. Advanced countries tend to have high globalization that is not varying across disciplines. Social sciences and health sciences are less globalized than physical and life sciences. The globalization in the former Soviet bloc is lower, especially in social sciences or health sciences. China has profoundly globalized its science system; gradually moving from the lowest globalization rates to the world average. Contrary Russia was constantly among the least globalized during the whole period, with no upward trend. |
| Keywords: | - - - |
| Date: | 2020–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:fau:wpaper:wp2020_15&r=all |