1. Introduction
In recent decades, the bibliometric study of the sciences
and the social sciences has gained more legitimacy than similar efforts to
explore the humanities. However, Linmans (forthcoming) recently has argued that
the humanities do not need to remain the weakest link in the scientometric
enterprise. Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) has
been available since 1975, and since 2004 Scopus and Google Scholar
provide alternatives which enable us to study the arts and humanities bibliometrically.
One major drawback of using the A&HCI for
scientometric purposes has hitherto been the absence of a Journal Citation
Report (JCR) for this database. JCRs are prepared annually from the Science
Citation Index (SCI) and the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) by
aggregating unique citations at the journal level on an annual basis.[3] These indices enable
the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) of ThomsonReuters to compute
scientometric indicators such as impact factors. JCRs provide
scientometricians with an opportunity to develop journal maps using the matrix
of aggregated journal-journal citations.
The obvious differences in the citation behavior of scholars
in the arts and humanities can be considered as another drawback for applying
citation analysis. Citation practices are not well established in the arts and
humanities; humanities scholars rely on various media (e.g., works of art and
poems) which may also be covered by the scholarly databases. Document types other
than journal articles (e.g., books, book reviews, monographs, etc.) should be
taken into account as important channels of communication in the humanities
(Garfield, 1982a; Hicks & Wang, 2009; Nederhof, 2006; Nederhof & Van
Raan, 1989).
Furthermore, sources in the humanities are often written by
authors who gain in importance over the years. As Garfield (1979, at p. 7)
formulated: “The masters are continually discussed.” This “different pace of
theoretical development” (Nederhof, 2006, at p. 16) results in a longer cited
half-life of publications. However, differences in publication and citation
practices (including cited half-lives) are pervasive among all disciplines (Leydesdorff,
2008, at p. 280). Disciplines, for example, are known to vary in terms of
publication portfolio types and therefore citation patterns (Cronin et al.,
1997).
In a recent study of coverage of the social sciences and
humanities in the bibliometric databases, Archambault et al. (2006) furthermore
noted that a topic in the humanities or social sciences may be developed in a specific
language (e.g., French) and consequently develop a semantics that is grounded
in this language. In such cases, the results may be of interest mainly to local
expertise. These authors also emphasized that research questions in such
(sub)disciplines may not be communicable internationally, and thus perhaps less
suitable for international collaboration. Such cultural factors may render
research in these areas a challenge to bibliometrics, especially since the
databases have often been criticized for their lack of national coverage and
their overrepresentation of formal publications in the English language (e.g., Van
Leeuwen et al., 2001).
Despite all these shortcomings, recent years have witnessed
a renewed interest in indexing and analyzing humanities research using
bibliometrics (e.g., Hicks & Wang, 2009; Linmans, forthcoming). From the
perspective of institutional management, administrators are under pressure to
assess different faculties and departments with comparable indicators (e.g.,
Aksnes & Sivertsen, 2009; Butler, 2007). Is the construction of
scientometric indicators and bibliometric maps using A&HCI a
feasible and desirable project?
In 2006, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences received
a three-year grant of $701,000 for developing a model set of Humanities
Indicators. The results of this project were presented early in 2009, and are
available at http://www.amacad.org/news/hrcoAnnounced.aspx.
Seventy-four indicators are organized into more than 200 tables and charts.
However, this data was based on a survey among scholars from the humanities;
the respondents argued that indicators should focus on what “users want”
instead of what the existing databases have to offer. The final chapter of the
report contains some information about academic publishing in the humanities,[4] but any mentioning of
citation analysis or the availability of relevant databases such as Scopus and
the A&HCI remain conspicuously absent from this report.
On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, activities to
“measure the humanities” bibliometrically have been coordinated by the European
Science Foundation (ESF). The ESF was established in 1974 as an association of
(80+) member organizations in 30 European nations. In 2005, the ESF funded
jointly with the European Commission a project entitled “Humanities in the
European Research Area” (HERA). As a follow-up, a project for developing a
“European Reference Index for the Humanities” (ERIH) was funded in 2008.
After the publication of “initial lists” ranking journals in
the humanities in terms of A, B, and C-categories, the ERIH consortium
announced the publication of revised lists of journals in 2009. The authors of
the proposal emphasized that the distinction among the categories A, B and C
was not meant to indicate quality, but to reflect factors such as the
disciplinary scope and audience of a journal. The same journal can occur on
several lists, but may be categorized differently depending on its importance
in each discipline.[5]
Nevertheless, a denunciation of the ERIH project as “dangerous” appeared in an
open letter signed by more than 60 Editors of journals devoted to the history
of science, technology, and medicine. These editors also demanded to have their
journals removed from what they nevertheless considered as a ranking (Howard,
2008). The letter was published in the first 2009 issue of these journals,
among which were leading periodicals such as Centaurus, Perspectives on
Science, ISIS, Annals of Science, and the British Journal for the
History of Science.[6]
Anticipating the release of the final lists by the ERIH
project, Elsevier’s Scopus announced on June 10, 2009 that it would
include in its database all (approximately 1,450) journals mentioned on these
lists. This will bring the Scopus coverage of the arts and humanities to
more than 3,500 journal titles.[7]
The A&HCI currently carries approximately 1,160 journal titles.[8] The argument of the ISI
is that they focus on exclusively high-quality journals. Garfield (1982b, at p.
761f.) explained that for the sake of preserving high quality, the journals in
the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index are
“selectively screened for relevant articles in these and other fields such as
history and philosophy of science, anthropology, law, economic, sociology, etc.
Also, about 120 multi-authored serials, monographs, or ‘books’ are covered in A&HCI.”
The number of journals mentioned by Garfield (1982b, at p. 761) as fully
covered source journals was 1,185 at the time.
In another context, one of us was involved in comparing the Scopus
and ISI databases for 2007 in terms of mapping results (Leydesdorff,
Moya-Anagón, and Guerrero-Bote, 2010). The Scopus database claimed to
cover more journals in the social sciences and humanities even before the
recent extension,[9]
but we concluded in that context that the A&HCI has hitherto
provided at least an equivalent resource for mapping the humanities. In this
study we extend this analysis by specifying the possibilities offered by A&HCI
in its current shape in greater detail.
What is specific about journals covered by A&HCI
as potentially different from the SCI and SSCI? Do the data
legitimate the decision of the ISI hitherto to refrain from producing a JCR
for this database? How would a JCR of A&HCI inform us about these
journals differently from the existing JCRs for the SCI and SSCI?
Bollen et al. (2009) found a relatively higher representation of A&H
journals in clickstream data than would be expected from citation patterns
alone. Is the impact of A&H perhaps underestimated when focusing on
the (S)SCI or A&HCI, separately?
In order to address these question, we decided to generate a
quasi-JCR for A&HCI for a single year (2008) using the data
at the Web of Science (WoS) and to pursue the analysis for two comparable art
journals (Leonardo and the Art Journal) during the full period of
their coverage both within this specific domain and by combining the three databases
at the WoS interface. The results of our explorations led us to a third
question—in addition to the analysis of the quasi-JCR for the A&HCI
and the more fine-grained analysis of two art journals—namely, whether
practices are perhaps more important in the A&H domain than research
fields (disciplines?). We explore this question using “digital humanities” as a
topic both within A&HCI and at the level of the three databases
combined.
2. Methods and materials
One can use the citations in any set of documents downloaded
from the A&HCI (or a combination among the three databases of the
ISI) for bibliographic coupling (Kessler, 1963) or co-citation analysis (Marshakova,
1973; Small, 1973) using freely available software such as BibExcel[11] or BibJourn.[12] (A historiogram of
the data can additionally be obtained using HistCite™.[13]) The download contains all the
cited references in the set; the cited references contain journal names (in an
abbreviated format) as a subfield. Furthermore, the recent reorganization of
the ISI interface makes it possible to retrieve and download all citing
documents at the so-called Citation Report of the original set. The citing
documents contain again the abbreviated journal names in the cited references
and thus allow one to perform a journal co-citation analysis of the set under
study.
In other words, the download of all articles in a journal in
a specific year generates a set containing all information about journals cited
and co-cited by this journal (“citing”) in that year. The “cited” pattern of
the journal among other journals can comprehensively be obtained by downloading
all citing documents and by repeating the analysis of the cited references in
this latter set. We use the program BibJourn since it enables us to aggregate
journal abbreviations in the cited references across a set of documents. The analysis
can thus be pursued at the level of journals. However, the same technique can
be applied to any set downloaded from the ISI databases. Such a set under study
can be considered as a quasi-journal composed of documents which cite journals and
which are co-cited with other journals in the references of the citing
documents.
One can expect long tails in the distributions of journal
citations. BibJourn allows for limiting the analysis, for example, to the top 1%
of the citation distribution (as is default in our journal-journal routines;
cf. Leydesdorff & Cozzens, 1993; Leydesdorff, 2007). In the humanities,
however, we found 0.5% more appropriate because of the wide range of citations
that can already be included at the top-1% level. The consequent visualizations
were generated by using the algorithm of Kamada & Kawai (1989) in Pajek.[14] Citation patterns are
normalized using the cosine (Ahlgren et al., 2003).
The size of the nodes in the figures is proportionate to the
logarithm of the frequency of the citations in each network environment. In the
case of using the quasi-JCR of the A&HCI—to be discussed
below in more detail—the horizontal sizes are additionally adjusted to the
frequency diminished with self-citations. Line-widths are proportionate to the
strength of the association. A threshold of cosine > 0.2 can be used to
enhance the visibility of structure in the network; this will be indicated in
the legends to the figures (Egghe & Leydesdorff, 2009). The nodes are colored
using the k-core algorithm as available in Pajek unless indicated
differently.
2.1 Journals in the
humanities
Leonardo, the Journal of the Society for the Arts,
Sciences, and Technology, published quarterly since 1968, can be considered as
a leading journal for readers interested in the applications of contemporary
science and technology to the arts (Salah & Salah, 2008). This journal is
not confined to the domain of the humanities, and addresses anyone following art
movements which incorporate new developments in science and technology into art
production. Thus, both the author profiles and audiences of the journal are
oriented toward interdisciplinary exchanges. In previous reports about the A&HCI,
Garfield (1982a, 1982b) showed that Leonardo was among the top-cited A&HCI
journals during the early 80s.
We downloaded the 6,186 documents of the 41 volumes (182
issues) of the journal since 1968 (on June 8, 2009). Since the retrieved
documents did not contain citation information for the period 1970-1973, the
analysis was limited to publications since 1974 (5,859 documents). This set
contains 31,147 cited references. As noted, using BibJourn.exe the journal
names in these references can be used to construct a matrix of documents versus
cited journals for each year since 1974. The resulting 35 matrices (1974-2008) were
used as input to an animation using the dynamic routine created for this
purpose in Visone (Leydesdorff & Schank, 2008).[15] This animation (using cosine
> 0.2 as a threshold) was brought online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/journals/leonardo/citing/index.htm.
Additionally, we use the sets of documents in each year to
generate the citing sets. These documents are processed with the same methods,
and the resulting animation is available at http://www.leydesdorff.net/journals/leonardo/cited/index.htm.
The two animations cover all journals included which are connected to the large
component in the respective set (cited or citing) at the level of cosine
≥ 0.2 in any of the years. Stress is minimized both within each year and
between years using a dynamic lay-outer based on multidimensional scaling
(Leydesdorff & Schank, 2008). In order to facilitate the mental map, the
common nodes and links between years are kept as stable as possible during the
transitions between years. Furthermore, we added substantive commentary to the
animations in order to facilitate the interpretation.
|
|
Number of Documents
in Leonardo
(1)
|
Cited References
(2)
|
Number of Citing Documents
(3)
|
Cited References in Citing Documents
(4)
|
Ratio (4)/(3)
|
|
1974
|
218
|
652
|
14
|
46
|
3.3
|
|
1975
|
215
|
731
|
42
|
505
|
12.0
|
|
1976
|
256
|
763
|
60
|
664
|
11.1
|
|
1977
|
277
|
708
|
37
|
338
|
9.1
|
|
1978
|
201
|
779
|
62
|
672
|
10.8
|
|
1979
|
232
|
969
|
42
|
771
|
18.4
|
|
1980
|
235
|
1,128
|
74
|
1,105
|
14.9
|
|
1981
|
273
|
918
|
74
|
892
|
12.1
|
|
1982
|
220
|
784
|
40
|
513
|
12.8
|
|
1983
|
185
|
909
|
35
|
383
|
10.9
|
|
1984
|
158
|
799
|
25
|
708
|
28.3
|
|
1985
|
87
|
486
|
34
|
6,840
|
201.2
|
|
1986
|
98
|
684
|
53
|
8,325
|
157.1
|
|
1987
|
121
|
861
|
22
|
3,951
|
179.6
|
|
1988
|
136
|
1,174
|
41
|
4,225
|
103.0
|
|
1989
|
166
|
1,230
|
46
|
1,329
|
28.9
|
|
1990
|
131
|
1,047
|
50
|
1,163
|
23.3
|
|
1991
|
171
|
1,242
|
49
|
1,006
|
20.5
|
|
1992
|
132
|
1,192
|
50
|
1,661
|
33.2
|
|
1993
|
94
|
787
|
37
|
893
|
24.1
|
|
1994
|
127
|
935
|
39
|
1,100
|
28.2
|
|
1995
|
108
|
841
|
37
|
1,674
|
45.2
|
|
1996
|
104
|
764
|
48
|
1,593
|
33.2
|
|
1997
|
92
|
738
|
33
|
1,015
|
30.8
|
|
1998
|
124
|
1,094
|
43
|
1,575
|
36.6
|
|
1999
|
160
|
993
|
35
|
1,388
|
39.7
|
|
2000
|
223
|
851
|
30
|
931
|
31.0
|
|
2001
|
161
|
969
|
38
|
1,806
|
47.5
|
|
2002
|
176
|
1,162
|
40
|
1,307
|
32.7
|
|
2003
|
173
|
835
|
53
|
1,637
|
30.9
|
|
2004
|
162
|
848
|
47
|
1,789
|
38.1
|
|
2005
|
153
|
698
|
79
|
3,064
|
38.8
|
|
2006
|
174
|
942
|
80
|
2,756
|
34.5
|
|
2007
|
159
|
710
|
84
|
3,278
|
39.0
|
|
2008
|
157
|
924
|
107
|
4,382
|
41.0
|
|
N
|
5,859
|
31,147
|
1,680
|
65,285
|
|
Table 1: Data used for the analysis of Leonardo
Table 1 provides the numbers of documents and references,
citing and cited, for the years 1974-2008. The rightmost column reveals that in
some years (e.g., 1985-1987) the numbers of cited references in journals citing
articles published in Leonardo were very high. This is caused by the inclusion
of bibliographies. For example, “The One Hundred Tenth Critical Bibliography of
the History of Science and Its Cultural Influences,” published as a special
issue of ISIS (Neu, 1985), contained 6,269 references. In our opinion,
this huge effect of bibliographies can be considered as a potential source of
distortion in the citation patterns in the arts and humanities (although this
effect may also occur in the SCI and SSCI).
For reasons of comparison, we selected a second journal from
the A&HCI, namely Art Journal. This journal dates back to
1941, and is one of the most important journals of the College Art
Association, an organization that can be considered the principal
professional agency of the arts, art history, and art criticism in the United States. Unlike Leonardo, we expect this journal’s referencing and being cited
patterns to be more confined within the domain of the A&HCI, that
is, less apparent at relevant interfaces between the arts & humanities and the
sciences and social sciences. We limit the static comparison to the most recent
year available at the time of this study, that is, to 2008. In this year, Art
Journal published 48 papers containing 679 references. During this same year,
it was cited 53 times in 42 papers (August 26, 2009).
Like most publications in the arts and humanities, both Art
Journal’s and Leonardo’s citation counts are relatively low
and irregular. Of the 2,645 items in Art Journal (in all years), 2,242
(84.8%) were never cited. These numbers are 5,011 out of 6,186 publications
(81.0%) for Leonardo.
Let us therefore proceed with caution when we refer to a citation pattern of a
journal in the arts and humanities. In the arts and humanities, one focuses on
the tips of icebergs of possible references even more so than in the (social)
sciences, since publication in the arts and humanities cannot be considered as
an endogenous mechanism for generating and supporting a research front. Even if
one cannot consider these maps as valid tools for evaluation purposes, they may
nevertheless inform us about unexpected characteristics of these journals and
reveal unforeseen aspects of the fields that support them.
2.2 Generation of a Journal Citation Report for
the A&HCI 2008
In order to obtain a more general insight into the A&HCI,
we constructed a Journal Citation Report 2008 by aggregating similarly the
complete set for this one year at the journal level (Leydesdorff, 1994). This
set contained 114,933 records, of which 114,929 could be retrieved, including 1,126,810
cited references based on 2,161 source journals. As noted, these journals cover
approximately 1000+ sources introduced selectively into A&HCI in addition to the 1,157 sources that are
fully covered by the A&HCI.
A citation to an ISI source publication (in all three
indices) has a standardized format as follows: “AUTHORNAME INITIALS, year,
JOURNAL ABBREVIATION, Volume number, Pagenumber”. Volume number and pagenumber,
however, may be missing while a correct journal abbreviation is still
available. Of the 1,126,810 cited references in the A&HCI for 2008,
1,093,005 (97.0%) contain the first three subfields of the cited reference,
that is, the author-name field, the year, and the source journal or book title.
These cited references were used for further processing.
Only 105,531 journal-journal citation relations (in 35,536
unique journal-journal relations) could be identified among the 2,161 journals
retrieved from the A&HCI database in 2008. This is less than 10% of
the total number of cited references (1,126,810), providing us with only a
faint representation of the citation relations within this ISI domain. The
other 90% of the references are to so-called “non-source publication,” that is,
references that are not counted as part of the A&HCI domain. Journal
names in only 33,805 of these references (3%) match with the 8,207 journals
included in the SCI and SSCI, but not in the A&HCI.
Only 33.0% of the remaining “source” materials in the A&HCI
belong to the category which the ISI considers as citable issues (articles,
reviews, letters, or proceedings papers), while the single category of “book
reviews” takes up 42.0%. In the Science Citation Index 2008, 78.2% of
the items are citable issues. The high percentage of book reviews supports Lewison’s
(2001) suggestion to use book reviews as a proxy for the impact of books. Garfield (1982b) reported on significantly similar figures for the A&HCI in
1981 (Table 2). The stability of this distribution (ρ = 0.895; p
< 0.01) during more than 25 years is most remarkable.
|
|
A&HCI 2008
|
%
|
Garfield (1982b)
|
%
|
|
Book
Review
|
48,290
|
42.0
|
46,528
|
45.9
|
|
Article
|
31,883
|
27.7
|
28,210
|
27.8
|
|
Editorial
Mater
|
6,803
|
5.9
|
2,217
|
2.2
|
|
Poetry
|
5,678
|
4.9
|
8,157
|
8.0
|
|
Art
Exhibit Rev
|
3,361
|
2.9
|
2,457
|
2.4
|
|
Letter
|
2,513
|
2.2
|
1,529
|
1.5
|
|
Film
Review
|
2,314
|
2.0
|
1,519
|
1.5
|
|
News
Item
|
2,233
|
1.9
|
|
0.0
|
|
Record
Review
|
2,173
|
1.9
|
1,379
|
1.4
|
|
Proceedings
Paper
|
1,972
|
1.7
|
|
0.0
|
|
Biographical-Item
|
1,720
|
1.5
|
1,082
|
1.1
|
|
Review
|
1,665
|
1.4
|
1,481
|
1.5
|
|
Music
Performan
|
1,440
|
1.3
|
1,459
|
1.4
|
|
Fiction,
Creative
|
679
|
0.6
|
1,492
|
1.5
|
|
Dance
Performance
|
527
|
0.5
|
579
|
0.6
|
|
Theater
Review
|
505
|
0.4
|
1,581
|
1.6
|
|
Correction
|
270
|
0.2
|
76
|
0.1
|
|
Music
Score Rev
|
233
|
0.2
|
755
|
0.7
|
|
TV
Review, Radio
|
182
|
0.2
|
106
|
0.1
|
|
Bibliography
|
128
|
0.1
|
|
0.0
|
|
Meeting
Abstract
|
106
|
0.1
|
418
|
0.4
|
|
Reprint
|
92
|
0.1
|
|
0.0
|
|
Excerpt
|
80
|
0.1
|
158
|
0.2
|
|
Script
|
32
|
0.0
|
124
|
0.1
|
|
Software
Review
|
26
|
0.0
|
|
0.0
|
|
Music
Score
|
18
|
0.0
|
55
|
0.1
|
|
Database
Review
|
4
|
0.0
|
|
0.0
|
|
Hardware
Review
|
2
|
0.0
|
|
0.0
|
|
Total
|
114,929
|
100.0
|
101,362
|
100.0
|
Table 2: Document types in the A&HCI in
1981 and 2008.
We structured the database on the model of the JCRs
of the ISI’s other two databases. The data thus could be used directly as input
to journal mapping routines already available from previous research
(Leydesdorff & Cozzens, 1993; Leydesdorff, 2007). These procedures allow us
to generate citation-matrices both in the cited and the citing direction, using
single journals as seed journals or pre-selected journal lists. Furthermore, we
can vary citation thresholds.
Although journal names are nowadays standardized in the ISI
databases, a further complication arose because journal name abbreviations in
the citing documents are different from journal name abbreviations in the cited
references when the abbreviation contains more than 20 characters. For example,
the journal Contemporary French and Francophone Studies is abbreviated
as Contemp Fr Francoph Stud in the citing document, but as Cont
French Francoph as a cited journal among the references. In order to
counteract this problem, we ran a routine that assumes that if the first three
words of a journal abbreviation begin with the same two characters, the
journals would be considered as identical. For example, in the above example
this key would be “Co-Fr-Fr”.[18]
The routine might introduce a bit of statistical error, but improves the number
of unique journal-journal relations to 40,112 (+ 12.9%) and the total number of
citation relations to 120,349 (+ 14.1%).
The low numbers of standardized citations from source
journals may have made the ISI hesitant to produce a JCR for the A&HCI.
The matrix is extremely sparse: 36,390 of the 41,374 unique citation
relations (88.0%) contain a value lower than five. For this reason, no
thresholds will be used in the further analysis of matrices using this data
unless otherwise specified. At http://www.leydesdorff.net/ah08/cited/index.htm
and http://www.leydesdorff.net/ah08/citing/index.htm
cosine-normalized citation matrices without citation thresholds in collecting
the data for all 1,157 source journals to the A&HCI are brought
online in Pajek format.
2.3 Digital Humanities
Journals may aggregate articles from different intellectual
traditions (e.g., library and information sciences), but they are not by
definition the most relevant units of analysis for the evaluation. New
developments may take place within and/or across journals (cf. Bensman, 2007,
at pp. 147 ff.; Griffith et al., 1974; Small, 1978). If the journal is
not primarily a unit of intellectual organization in the arts and humanities,
but mainly a channel of cultural dissemination, may intellectual exchange then be
organized topically? We shall turn to the topic of “digital humanities” and
show the possibilities of the proposed methods of mapping when applied either to
a set extracted from the A&HCI itself or in combination with the two
other databases at the WoS interface.
The “digital humanities,” previously known as “humanities
computing,” can be considered as a community of practice (Agyris and Schön 1978).
The topic itself is defined and applied differently by practitioners with a
variety of disciplinary backgrounds. For example, it can be considered as a
tool or methodology enabling humanities research, teaching, presentation, and
preservation methods.
Academic departments that make use of digital humanities laboratories typically
include technical practitioners as well as traditionally trained scholars. Such
departments tend to be heavily involved in collaborative and interdisciplinary
research projects with colleagues in other departments.[21]
|
|
Number of Documents
|
Cited References
|
Number of Citing
Documents
|
Cited References in
Citing Documents
|
|
A&HCI
|
23
|
429
|
24
|
2,181
|
|
WoS
|
46
|
829
|
30
|
2,480
|
Table 3: data about “digital humanities”
(since 1975)
Despite the proclaimed priority of this topic as the part of
an envisaged cyber-infrastructure relevant for the humanities (e.g., at http://www.neh.gov/ODH/GrantOpportunities/tabid/57/Default.aspx),
the search string ‘ts=(“digital humanities” or “humanities computing”)’ in the WoS
generated only two documents in the A&HCI 2008 and two more in the
other two databases. For this reason, we extended in this case the search to
all years (since 1975). This provided us with 23 and 46 documents, respectively
(on September 8, 2009; Table 3).
We use the aggregated cited references in and citations to these documents for
the mapping.
3. Results
3.1 The journal Leonardo
The animations—at http://www.leydesdorff.net/journals/leonardo/cited/index.htm
and http://www.leydesdorff.net/journals/leonardo/citing/index.htm,
respectively—locate Leonardo as an interdisciplinary journal connected
to the sciences, social sciences, and the arts throughout the time span covered.
Note that the journal started its publication with an interdisciplinary
intention and orientation. This interdisciplinarity in its citation environment
did not change over the years in terms of either its referenced knowledge base
(“citing”) or its (“cited”) impact environment. However, the citation patterns
are not dense and are therefore volatile from year to year.
Figure 1: 53 journals cited by 157 articles in Leonardo
in 2008; no citation threshold within the set; cosine > 0.0.
Figure 1 shows the results of the co-citations of 53 journals
cited in 924 references of the 157 articles published in Leonardo during
2008.
Figure 2 provides the corresponding co-citation map using 107 articles which
cited Leonardo in 2008. While articles in Leonardo cite the
sciences and the social sciences in addition to its citations to journals and
books in the humanities, the journal is mainly cited in domains other than the
arts and humanities given the threshold of using only journals which contribute
0.5% to the aggregate of the references.
Figure 2: Cosine relations among 3,259 references in
107 articles citing Leonardo during 2008; only journals which contribute
more than 0.5% to the total number of citations; no citation threshold within
the set; cosine > 0.0; colors of nodes correspond to the highest factor
loadings in a varimax-rotated three-factor solution.
Figure 2 shows an unexpected finding: among the 568 journals
which contain documents citing Leonardo in 2008 (3,259 times), only 24
contribute more than 0.5% (that is, more than 16 times) to its being cited
pattern, and these 24 journals are mainly in the domain of the sciences and the
social sciences. Three journal groups are relevant in this citation impact
environment: physics, neuroscience, and perception research. These three
factors explain 53.8% of the variance. (The nodes are colored in accordance to
their highest loadings in the Varimax-rotated three-factor solution.) Leonardo
itself is positioned at the edge between the latter two specialties.
The presence of science journals in this being-cited
environment of Leonardo is not stable over the years, but in all years science
journals are visible in relatively large clusters. Among the science journal
citing Leonardo from year to year, Science, Nature, and Scientific
American dominate the animation. Another cluster contains journals with a
focus on computer graphics since the mid-80s. A third, relatively stable
cluster is provided by journals in cognitive science that enter the picture at
the beginning of the 1990s, with strong connections to a psychology cluster.
Through studies on vision and perception, journals in neuroscience, cognitive
science, psychology, and computer graphics are related to this citation
environment.
Art journals form another important group in the animations
of the citation patterns of Leonardo. This group is more or less equally
divided into journals focusing on aesthetics, art theory, and contemporary art
news. Upon closer inspection of the animations, one can distinguish that theoretically
oriented journals are more persistently visible in the animation based on
articles citing Leonardo, while journals reporting on the latest state
of the art market cite Leonardo more than they are cited in Leonardo’s
publications. Core journals of the arts and art history such as Art News,
Studio International, Art Forum, Art Bulletin, and Art Journal
are consistently included.
After the turn of the century, Leonardo has increasingly
lost citations from the art world in favor of citations from journals in the
sciences. In 2008 (Figure 2), science journals are prevailing in its citation
impact environment. In earlier years, however, some core-books by Gombrich
(1960), Arnheim (1954 and 1969), and Goodman (1988) were also heavily cited.
These art historians are renowned for their interest in psychology and
linguistics, and hence their presence as references in the citation networks
strengthened Leonardo’s citation relations with journals in these
disciplines.
b. Leonardo in the
quasi-JCR data of the A&HCI
Using the quasi-JCR of the A&HCI, one
focuses exclusively on the source journals included in the A&HCI,
whereas all cited references were included in the analysis when using the WoS
interface. Within the more restricted domain of the A&HCI, however, only
44 journals were cited by articles in Leonardo during 2008; 36 of these
form a citation network at the level of cosine > 0.2, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Journal map of 36
journals in the A&HCI cited by publications in Leonardo 2008;
no citation threshold; cosine ≥ 0.2.
Leonardo is positioned in this representation among other
art journals such as Art Bulletin, Artforum International, the Burlington
Magazine, and Art America. The journal’s interdisciplinary position
is no longer visible given this domain of exclusively the A&HCI.
However, journals in the history and philosophy of science (e.g., ISIS, Social Studies of Science) form a circle at a first distance (k
= 1).
The factor analysis distinguishes four factors which are
designated with their respective percentages of explained variance in Figure 3.
The social sciences, linguistics, and computer music are distinguishable as
separate groups. (We return to the Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte which
is visible on the left side of the picture, in a section below.)
We can conclude that the art world itself is a relatively
closed group in terms of referencing, revealing only weak links to the sciences
and linguistics group. The comparison of Figures 1 and 3 shows that Leonardo
draws citing upon a varied knowledge base, but is more central to its
environment when the three databases are combined (Figure 1). The citing
environment in the A&HCI (Figure 3), however, enables us to
delineate a cluster of neighboring journals that provide an intellectually
organized knowledge base referenced by publications in Leonardo.
Figure 4: 36 journals in the citation impact
environment of Leonardo in the A&HCI 2008; no citation
thresholds; cosine > 0.0.
The citation impact environment of Leonardo in the
restricted domain of the A&HCI 2008 (Figure 4) is almost barren in
comparison to Figure 2, where three strong clusters in the science literature were
visible. Here, Leonardo is mainly embedded in a cluster of art journals.
The rest of the network can be considered as an environment to this cluster: the
remaining journals are loosely connected to one another and to the main
component. Among them, a few cognitive science journals and a computer graphics
journal catch the eye. Other than these journals, Figures 2 and 4 share no
resemblances at all, as Figure 2 did not contain a single art journal. This
discrepancy in Leonardo’s citation impact as assumed by using the WoS
or the quasi-JCR of the A&HCI as relevant environments raises
the question of whether this diffusion pattern is specific for Leonardo
or more generally the case for art journals.
c. Art Journal
The editors of Leonardo stated the objective of
creating an interdisciplinary publication venue. Our findings show that the
journal has indeed generated an interdisciplinary citation impact environment. In
the citing dimension we were able to identify a group to which the journal can
be attributed, but only after confining the analysis to the A&HCI
domain. Would such a pattern be the norm for journals in the arts and
humanities? Might other art journals also have a more general impact on the
basis of cultural values, that is, beyond lines of intellectual organization,
while drawing their references (that is, citing) from a specific knowledge
base? Let us compare the citation patterns of Leonardo with a second art
journal.
Art Bulletin is the first journal that comes to mind for
such a comparison. This leading art journal has been published since
1913 by the College Art Association, the main organization of art
historians in the USA. Art Bulletin had higher rankings than Leonardo
in Garfield’s (1982b) most-cited journal lists of A&HCI; in 2008, it
had 283 citations in this database as against 90 for Leonardo. However,
as a long-standing journal dedicated to publishing the latest research in the
history of art and architecture, the publication scope and audience of Art
Bulletin is not close enough to Leonardo for a fair comparison. Art
Bulletin is devoted to scholarly discussions and emphasizes theory and
methodology of art history, while Leonardo is focused on contemporary
art, and covers art events and related news in addition to discussions of
theory and methods.
For this reason, we chose to use another publication of the College
Art Association, namely Art Journal. This journal publishes (since
1941) articles related to contemporary art, and in that sense its audience and
constituency is akin to that of Leonardo. In the quasi-JCR of the
A&HCI 2008, Art Journal is cited 86 times by articles in 49
journals. One hundred sixty-two journals, however, cite papers from Art
Journal during 2008 in the larger domain of the combined SCI, SSCI, and
A&HCI; 161 of these 162 journals are related to the main component above
the level of cosine > 0.2.
In other words, Art Journal like Leonardo is
overwhelmingly cited outside the domain of the arts and the humanities. The
journals in this larger environment range from physics to advertising research,
but most references are to “non-source” journals such as the NY Times,
Newsweek, and the Washington Post. In other words, even more than in
the case of Leonardo, the citation impact of Art Journal shows a
large network of influence, and a large imbalance between being cited and
citing. The impact of journals in the arts is not confined to the Arts &
Humanities as scholarly discourses in journals, but reaches a much wider
set including the sciences, the social sciences, and the larger public.
Using the restricted set of the A&HCI it is
possible to select a set of 27 journals which are associated to Art Journal and
to one another as a core, with 24 relations among each two of them at the level
of cosine > 0.2. Both Leonardo and the Art Bulletin are part
of this core set (Figure 5).
Figure 5: 22 journals cited by Art Journal in
the A&HCI domain in 2008; no citation threshold; cosine > 0.0.
In summary, the patterns of citations in the citing and
cited dimensions are different for these art journals. Although they draw on a
wider environment, it is possible to find core groups among the journals in the
A&HCI in terms of how the authors in these journals provide
references when constructing their arguments. These journals, however, are not cited
primarily in these restricted environments, but in the larger environment,
perhaps not so much for intellectual as for cultural and instrumental reasons.
The predominant rationale of references to these journals is different from that
which governs the sciences and the social sciences, where intellectual
organization can explain the patterns of citation.
Given this conclusion, one might indeed be hesitant to
assess journals and research covered by the A&HCI in terms of
scientometric indicators which use field-specific parameters. These journals
may have functions completely different from the specialty structures that
prevail in the sciences and social sciences. Thus, the journals and the
constituting articles can be evaluated also in terms of these wider cultural
influences. The database and citations are organized not only on
socio-cognitive grounds, but also on the basis of cultural patterns.
3.3 Languages as cultural organizers
The priority of cultural patterns of diffusion brings us
back to Archambault et al.’s (2006) argument that these alternative
paths of cultural dissemination might be local, regional, or national. Let us
pause for a moment with this possibility. Table 4 first shows the language
distribution among the 114,929 items retrieved for the purpose of the
construction of a quasi-JCR of the A&HCI 2008.
|
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
|
English
|
82,298
|
71.6
|
|
French
|
12,520
|
10.9
|
|
German
|
8,691
|
7.6
|
|
Italian
|
3,669
|
3.2
|
|
Spanish
|
3,344
|
2.9
|
|
Russian
|
1,613
|
1.4
|
|
Czech
|
532
|
0.5
|
|
Dutch
|
489
|
0.4
|
|
Croatian
|
296
|
0.3
|
|
Chinese
|
231
|
0.2
|
|
Polish
|
196
|
0.2
|
|
Lithuanian
|
191
|
0.2
|
|
Slovene
|
179
|
0.2
|
|
Turkish
|
149
|
0.1
|
|
Slovak
|
138
|
0.1
|
|
Portuguese
|
122
|
0.1
|
|
Swedish
|
102
|
0.1
|
|
other
|
169
|
0.1
|
|
Total
|
114,929
|
100.0
|
Table 4: language distribution of the items contained
in the A&HCI 2008.
The shares for the major European languages are higher than
in the Science Citation Index (see a comparable table for the SCI
2007 and Scopus 2007 in Leydesdorff et al., 2010, Table 1). It is
noteworthy that there are no contributions in Chinese, and that only four
documents are in Japanese. However, our investigations left us nevertheless with
the impression that the citation patterns were not organized primarily along
linguistic lines.
For example, Figure 6 shows the cited impact environment for
the journal Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte in the quasi-JCR. The
journal is cited in 2008 by articles in 23 journals of the A&HCI. Figure
6 is based on the matrix of citations among these journals. Unlike the Zeitschrift
für Soziologie (see Figures 11 and 12 in Leydesdorff et al., 2010),
this journal is cited in other art journals at the international level: German
journals are interfaced with journals in other European languages.
Figure 6: Network of 21 journals citing articles in the
Zeitschrift fuer Kunstgeschichte in the A&HCI 2008; no
citation threshold; cosine > 0.2.
Although art history and therefore the Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte
are deeply embedded in German scholarly traditions, this journal’s citation
pattern is more internationalized than that of comparable journals in the
social sciences. Art journals may be embedded internationally more than social
science journals because cultural transmission within the West increasingly
transcends the boundaries of nations.
3.4 Digital Humanities
If journals in the arts and humanities serve functions other
than intellectual organization, this begs for the question of whether other
mechanisms of organization and intervention such as professional communities can
replace journals in providing the function of intellectual focus and exchange.
Let us for this purpose explore the initiatives in what is nowadays mostly
called “digital humanities,” but was previously known as “humanities
computing.”
Digital Humanities can be considered as a focus or topic
that was first generated by new possibilities to apply computational analysis
methods to large collections, as well as to archive works of arts and
literature in a digital format. Depending on the research environment, Digital
Humanities can be envisioned as a methodology, a tool, or a research initiative
to investigate how knowledge is produced with new media technologies, while at
the same time making use of these technologies in humanities research itself. As
noted, one can also consider Digital Humanities as a community of practice.
Figure 7: Journal co-citation patterns of 33
documents citing 46 documents about “Digital Humanities” in 2008; threshold
0.5%; cosine ≥ 0.0.
Figures 7 provides the citation impact environment for the
46 documents downloaded under “digital humanities” or “humanities computing”
from the ISI’s Web of Science on September 8, 2009. The figure shows that
these documents are cited in a limited domain of two or three groups of
journals, namely, new specialist journals with a focus on computer usage in the
humanities, and a group of library and information science journals addressing the
digitalization of archives and libraries.
These 46 documents cite from a wider range of disciplines
including 81 journals. Six factors explain 66.5% of the variance in this matrix.
The first three factors (51.7%) can be designated, respectively, as library
& information science (34.6%), the application of computers in linguistics
(10.9%), computers and literature, including markup languages (6.1%). Factor 1 can
be considered as a strong component of 30+ journals. This core group is made
visible in Figure 8.
Figure 8: k-core group of 36 journals
bibliographically coupled in 46 documents about “digital humanities”; threshold
0.5%; cosine > 0.2.
The majority of the journals in this core group have a long
publication history that goes back to the first decade of “humanities computing.”
Journals like Academic Computing, Humanities Computing, or CALICA
Journal were important publication venues for scholars combining
computational methods with humanities research, long before “digital humanities”
was formulated as a topic. In addition to such determining journals for the
Digital Humanities, one encounters journals such as Byte, a computer art
journal with a publication history of 30 years, or Macworld, a magazine with
articles about the latest technological achievements of Apple industries. These
journals are cited not only because of the scholarly activities they report,
but also because of the need to share information about the latest
technologies, or about how these technologies can be applied in settings beyond
those for which they were originally designed (such as using early computers to
create art).
Unlike the humanities journals that we investigated in
previous sections, “digital humanities” as a topic does not provide us with a
wide-spread pattern in its citation impact environment. Its citing and cited
patterns resemble rather more those of the (social) sciences, in the sense that
the impact is limited to a few groups of scholarly journals. Among these groups
computational linguistics and text analysis are central. Interestingly enough, information
visualization—a topic that is currently one of the main occupations in
laboratories developing Digital Humanities—is represented neither in the citing
nor the cited maps.
In summary, the investigation of this dataset retrieved from
the WoS reveals that the topic does not mirror the citation patterns of journals
in the humanities, but is more akin to that in the other sciences. In terms of
citation flows, furthermore, the topic is not so much diffused into humanities
as one would expect, but equally related to disciplines such as linguistics and
computer science.
In our opinion, the numbers of documents for the whole
period 1975-2008 were astonishingly low. As noted, Digital Humanities can be
considered as a community of practice(s) more than a specialty. Following the advent
of the Internet, Digital Humanities scholars made use of this new venue both
for doing research and for publishing and sharing information. However, the
dataset collected from the WoS represents only the formal literature and
therefore disregards most communications that appear in online journals,
discussion forums, blogs, mailing lists, etc. To map this larger knowledge base
of the Digital Humanities, a dataset including these venues (e.g., Google
Scholar) could be considered, but such an elaboration would reach beyond the
scope of this study.
Conclusions and discussion
Given the absence of a JCR for the A&HCI,
we reconstructed journals in terms of the citing and being-cited patterns using
the user interface of the ISI databases at the Web of Science.
Additionally, we aggregated the complete set of documents attributed to the A&HCI
for the construction of a quasi-JCR in 2008. Our first interest was in the
position in their citation networks of typical art journals like Leonardo
and Art Journal. Although these two journals address different
audiences, namely an interdisciplinary one in the case of Leonardo and
one more focused on expertise in the arts in the case of Art Journal, we
found similar patterns in both cases. The two journals are widely cited beyond
their “disciplinary” background. We proposed to consider this cultural
dissemination as different from the intellectual organization that prevails in
the sciences and the social sciences.
Using the restricted set of the quasi-JCR for the A&HCI
2008, it is possible to retrieve a cluster of journals in both cases that use
references from other art journals in a comparable way. Thus, one could say
that these journals belong to an intellectually coherent group in their
reference patterns, but not in their citation patterns. Since evaluation
studies measure impact by being cited, this raises questions for the evaluation
of these journals using scientometric indicators (e.g., impact factors). Impact
in the arts may mean something different from the sciences and the social
sciences.
Our results suggest that the being-cited patterns in these
cases do not indicate the provision of a knowledge base for new knowledge
contributions at a research front, but may mean a source of cultural
inspiration and influence. This would also explain the slower pace of
“progress” in the humanities. We showed that the being-cited pattern of a
community of practice (the “digitial humanities”) was more focused in this
domain than that of these journals. The concern among scholars and journal
editors in the arts and humanities about the administrative tendency to
evaluate the arts and humanities using indicators like those applied in the
sciences and the social sciences should thus be taken seriously.
References:
Agyris, C., &
Schön, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: Theory, Method and Practice. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ahlgren, P.,
Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2003). Requirement for a Cocitation
Similarity Measure, with Special Reference to Pearson’s Correlation
Coefficient. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 54(6), 550-560.
Aksnes, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2009). A Macro-Study of
Scientific Productivity and Publication Patterns across all Scientific and
Scholarly Disciplines. In B. Larsen & J. Leta (Eds.), 12th
International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and
Informetrics (Vol. 1, pp. 394-398). Rio de Janeiro: BIREME/PAHO/WHO and the
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Archambault,
É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking
scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing
databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329-342.
Arnheim, R.
(1954). Art and visual perception: a psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Arnheim, R.
(1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Ball, R., &
Tunger, D. (2006). Science indicators revisited-Science Citation Index versus
SCOPUS: A bibliometric comparison of both citation databases. Information
Services and Use, 26(4), 293-301.
Bensman, S. J.
(2007). Garfield and the impact factor. Annual Review of Information Science
and Technology, 41(1), 93-155.
Bollen, J., Van
de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., Bettencourt, L., Chute, R., Rodriguez, M. A., &
Balakireva, L. (2009). Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of science.
PLoS ONE, 4(3), e4803.
Busa, R. A.
(2004). Foreword: Perspectives on the Digital Humanities. In Susan Schreibman,
Ray Siemens, & John Unsworth (Eds.), A Companion to Digital Humanities.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Butler, L.
(2007). Assessing university research: a plea for a balanced approach. Science
and Public Policy, 34(8), 565-574.
Cronin, B.,
Snyder, H., & Atkins, H. (1997). Comparative citation rankings of authors
in monographic and journal literature: a study of sociology. Journal of
Documentation, 53(3), 263-273.
Egghe, L., &
Leydesdorff, L. (2009). The relation between Pearson’s correlation coefficient r
and Salton’s cosine measure. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 60(5), 1027-1036.
Garfield, E.
(1972). Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation. Science 178
(Number 4060), 471-479.
Garfield, E.
(1979). Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science,
Technology, and Humanities. New York: John Wiley.
Garfield, E.
(1979). Most Cited Authors in the Arts and Humanities, 1977-1978. Current Contents,
32, 5-10.
Garfield, E. (1982a).
Data from Arts & Humanities Citation Index Reveal the
Interrelationships of Science and Humanities. Current Contents 46, 5-7.
Garfield, E.
(1982b). Arts and Humanities Journals Differ from Natural and Social Sciences
Journals - But Their Similarities Are Surprising. Current Contents 47,
5-11.
Gombrich, E. H.
(1960). Art and illusion: A study in the psychology of pictorial perception.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Goodman, N.
(1988). Language of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Griffith, B.,
Small, H., Stonehil, J., & Dey, S. (1974). Structure of scientific
literatures II. Toward a Macrostructure and Microstructure for Science. Science
Studies, 4(4), 339-365.
Hicks, D., &
Wang, J. (2009). Towards a Bibliometric Database for the Social Sciences and
Humanities. http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=diana_hicks/18.
Hockney, S. (2004).
The History of Humanities Computing. In Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens, John
Unsworth (Eds.), A Companion to Digital Humanities. Oxford: Blackwell,
pp. 3-19.
Howard, J.
(2008). New Ratings of Humanities Journals Do More Than Rank - They Rankle. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 55 (October 10, 2008)(7), A10.
Kamada, T., &
Kawai, S. (1989). An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Information
Processing Letters, 31(1), 7-15.
Kessler, M. M.
(1963). Bibliographic Coupling between Scientific Papers. American
Documentation 14(1), 10-25.
Lewison, G.
(2001). Evaluation of books as research outputs in history of medicine. Research
Evaluation, 10(2), 89-95.
Leydesdorff, L.
(1994). The generation of aggregated journal-journal citation maps on the basis
of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 31(1),
59-84.
Leydesdorff, L.
(2007). Visualization of the Citation Impact Environments of Scientific
Journals: An online mapping exercise. Journal of the American Society of
Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 207-222.
Leydesdorff, L.
(2008). Caveats for the Use of Citation Indicators in Research and
Journal Evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology, 59(2), 278-287.
Leydesdorff, L.,
& Cozzens, S. E. (1993). The Delineation of Specialties in Terms of
Journals Using the Dynamic Journal Set of the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics,
26, 133-154.
Leydesdorff,
L., De Moya-Anegón, F., & Guerrero-Bote, V. P. (2010). Journal Maps
on the Basis of Scopus Data: A comparison with the Journal Citation Reports of
the ISI, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, in print.
Leydesdorff, L.,
Schank, T., Scharnhorst, A., & De Nooy, W. (2008). Animating the
Development of Social Networks over Time Using a Dynamic Extension of
Multidimensional Scaling. El Profesional de Información 17(6), 611-626.
Linmans, J.
(2010). Why with bibliometrics the humanities does not need to be the weakest
link. Scientometrics, forthcoming.
Marshakova, I. V. (1973). Bibliographic coupling system based on references. Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya
Informatsiya Seriya, Ser. 2(SSR 2), 3-8.
McCarty, W.
(1998). What is Humanities Computing? Toward a definition of the field. Paper
presented at Liverpool, 20 February 1998. Retrieved at http://staff.cch.kcl.ac.uk/~wmccarty/essays/McCarty,%20What%20is%20humanities%20computing.pdf
(13 October 2009).
McCarty, W.
(2003). Humanities Computing. Encyclopedia of Library and Information
Science, 1224-1236.
Nederhof, A. J.
(2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences
and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81-100.
Nederhof, A. J.,
& Van Raan, A. F. J. (1987). Peer review and bibliometric indicators of
scientific performance: a comparison of cum laude doctorates with ordinary
doctorates in physics. Scientometrics, 11(5), 333-350.
Neu, J. (1985).
One Hundred Tenth Critical Bibliography of the History of Science and Its
Cultural Influences. Isis, 76(5), 5-240.
Piez, W. (2008).
Something Called ‘Digital Humanities’. Digital Humanities Quarterly 2(1),
1-11. Retrieved at http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/2/1/000020.html
(13 October 2009).
Raben, J. (1991).
Humanities Computing 25 Years Later. Computers and the Humanities 25(6),
341-50.
Salah, A. A. A.,
and Salah, A. A. (2008). Technoscience Art: A Bridge between Neuroesthetics and
Art History? Review of General Psychology 12(2), 47-58.
Small, H. (1973).
Co-citation in the Scientific Literature: A New measure of the Relationship
between Two Documents. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 24(4), 265-269.
Small, H. (1978).
Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science 7,
113-122.
Unsworth, J.
(2002). What is Humanities Computing and What is Not? Jahrbuch
für Computerphilologie 4, 71-84.
Van
Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & Van Raan,
A. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation
Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research
performance. Scientometrics, 51(1), 335-346.
return
