IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v13y2024i10p537-d1496487.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Periphery of the European Social Sciences—A Scientometric Analysis of Publication Performance, Excellence, and Internal Bias in Social Sciences in the Visegrad Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Péter Sasvári

    (Faculty of Public Governance and International Studies, Ludovika University of Public Service, 1083 Budapest, Hungary
    Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, 3515 Miskolc, Hungary)

  • Gergely Ferenc Lendvai

    (Faculty of Law, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, 1088 Budapest, Hungary)

Abstract

This study examines the publication performance of the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia across 24 social science disciplines indexed by Scopus from 2019 to 2023. Using data from Scopus, SciVal, and Scimago, we analyzed regional journal statuses, disciplinary backlogs, journal biases, and publication excellence. Our results show that Poland and the Czech Republic lead in journal and publication counts, whereas Hungary and Slovakia lag behind significantly. Four disciplines—e-learning, human factors and ergonomics, life-span and life-course studies, and social work—had minimal or no publications, highlighting their marginalization. We found a high internal bias in publication practices, notably in Poland and Hungary, which raises concerns considering the Norwegian list standards. While Poland and the Czech Republic show a higher proportion of excellent publications, the overall number of high-quality articles remains low, and publications by the Big Five publishers are exceedingly limited. This analysis underscores the need for strategic policy interventions to enhance research quality and international collaboration to improve the scientific standing of the Visegrad countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Péter Sasvári & Gergely Ferenc Lendvai, 2024. "On the Periphery of the European Social Sciences—A Scientometric Analysis of Publication Performance, Excellence, and Internal Bias in Social Sciences in the Visegrad Countries," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:13:y:2024:i:10:p:537-:d:1496487
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/10/537/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/10/537/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarah Rijcke & Alexander Rushforth, 2015. "To intervene or not to intervene; is that the question? On the role of scientometrics in research evaluation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(9), pages 1954-1958, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Clemens Blümel & Stephan Gauch, 2021. "Introduction to special issue: quantitative studies of science in Germany," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9641-9647, December.
    2. Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 565-578.
    3. Carlo Galli & Stefano Guizzardi, 2021. "The Effect of Article Characteristics on Citation Number in a Diachronic Dataset of the Biomedical Literature on Chronic Inflammation: An Analysis by Ensemble Machines," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-11, April.
    4. Anne K. Krüger, 2020. "Quantification 2.0? Bibliometric Infrastructures in Academic Evaluation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 58-67.
    5. Andersen, Jens Peter, 2017. "An empirical and theoretical critique of the Euclidean index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 455-465.
    6. Bornmann, Lutz & Williams, Richard, 2017. "Can the journal impact factor be used as a criterion for the selection of junior researchers? A large-scale empirical study based on ResearcherID data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 788-799.
    7. Anne K Krüger & Sabrina Petersohn, 2022. "‘I want to be able to do what I know the tools will allow us to do’: Practicing evaluative bibliometrics through digital infrastructure," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 475-485.
    8. Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra & Prithviraj Pahwa, 2022. "The Extended Computational Case Method: A Framework for Research Design," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(4), pages 1826-1867, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:13:y:2024:i:10:p:537-:d:1496487. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.