Publication and Citation Patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A National Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the perspective of non-Anglophone countries, accountability, liability, and capacity of scientific research is often related to the process of internationalization. The article explores the effects of this process on the example of publication and citation patterns of Serbian scholars. Results of the analysis are mostly in line with the common conceptions about the differences among scientific disciplines. Authors in social sciences and humanities have manifested more nationally oriented publication and citation behavior, tendency to cite older literature, and stronger preference towards non-journal literature. However, huge individual differences among scholars and some inconsistencies between their publication and citation patterns, reveal a form of latent conflict between the accustomed publishing behavior in social sciences and humanities and the new dynamics of knowledge production. This conflict obscures the notion of typical or expected behavior of scholars in certain disciplines and has important implications for research evaluation. Scholars in social sciences and humanities were not so eager and successful in shifting their communication to the international arena. For them, national journals still play a crucial role in the “local” information exchange. But the question is how one transitional country that is facing serious structural challenges and weak economy can afford to support “locally relevant” research projects and whether national journals have become a mere tool for an ungainly customized research evaluation in the social sciences and humanities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".