Investigating SSH Research and Publication Practices in Disciplinary and Institutional Contexts. A Survey-Based Comparative Approach in Two Universities.

In this paper, we comparatively analyze, present and discuss the results from a survey on increasing the visibility of research achievements in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) that was carried out at the University of Vienna (Austria) and the University of Navarra (Spain) in 2016 and 2017. Covering four major topics-searching and finding literature, publishing, the visibility of research, and the assessment of research outputs-we ask the following questions: are there disciplinary differences to be identified, and how do they present themselves in the two institutional contexts? Discussing the results, we showcase how disciplinary and institutional traditions and contexts are important factors that influence research and publication practices in the SSH. Our results indicate that the practices of searching and finding literature as well as publication practices and behavior are shaped by disciplinary traditions and epistemic cultures. On the contrary, assessment and valuation of research outputs are influenced by institutional and national contexts in which SSH research is organized and carried out.

Research data explored: an extended analysis of citations and altmetrics.

In this study, we explore the citedness of research data, its distribution over time and its relation to the availability of a digital object identifier (DOI) in the Thomson Reuters database Data Citation Index (DCI). We investigate if cited research data "impacts" the (social) web, reflected by altmetrics scores, and if there is any relationship between the number of citations and the sum of altmetrics scores from various social media platforms. Three tools are used to collect altmetrics scores, namely PlumX, ImpactStory, and Altmetric.com, and the corresponding results are compared. We found that out of the three altmetrics tools, PlumX has the best coverage. Our experiments revealed that research data remain mostly uncited (about 85 %), although there has been an increase in citing data sets published since 2008. The percentage of the number of cited research data with a DOI in DCI has decreased in the last years. Only nine repositories are responsible for research data with DOIs and two or more citations. The number of cited research data with altmetrics "foot-prints" is even lower (4-9 %) but shows a higher coverage of research data from the last decade. In our study, we also found no correlation between the number of citations and the total number of altmetrics scores. Yet, certain data types (i.e. survey, aggregate data, and sequence data) are more often cited and also receive higher altmetrics scores. Additionally, we performed citation and altmetric analyses of all research data published between 2011 and 2013 in four different disciplines covered by the DCI. In general, these results correspond very well with the ones obtained for research data cited at least twice and also show low numbers in citations and in altmetrics. Finally, we observed that there are disciplinary differences in the availability and extent of altmetrics scores.

On the bibliometric coordinates of four different research fields in Geography.

This study is a bibliometric analysis of the highly complex research discipline Geography. In order to identify the most popular and most cited publication channels, to reveal publication strategies, and to analyse the discipline's coverage within publications, the three main data sources for citation analyses, namely Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, have been utilized. This study is based on publication data collected for four individual evaluation exercises performed at the University of Vienna and related to four different subfields: Geoecology, Social and Economic Geography, Demography and Population Geography, and Economic Geography. The results show very heterogeneous and individual publication strategies, even in the same research fields. Monographs, journal articles and book chapters are the most cited document types. Differences between research fields more related to the natural sciences than to the social sciences are clearly visible, but less considerable when taking into account the higher number of co-authors. General publication strategies seem to be established for both natural science and social sciences, however, with significant differences. While in natural science mainly publications in international peer-reviewed scientific journals matter, the focus in social sciences is rather on book chapters, reports and monographs. Although an "iceberg citation model" is suggested, citation analyses for monographs, book chapters and reports should be conducted separately and should include complementary data sources, such as Google Scholar, in order to enhance the coverage and to improve the quality of the visibility and impact analyses. This is particularly important for social sciences related research within Geography.