IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v20y2011i2p117-129.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A bibliometric study of productivity and impact of modern language and literature research

Author

Listed:
  • Anton J Nederhof

Abstract

A bibliometric evaluation was made of research performance in modern language and linguistics research. Separate analyses were made for language and linguistics and for literature components of each language in the study. The study covered both publications directed at a national or international scholarly output and publications destined for the general public. The latter accounted for 8–73% of the output, and were particularly important in literature output. Publication and citation behavior differed considerably between language and linguistics on the one hand and literature on the other hand, calling for a tailored design of monitoring studies in both fields. In publications directed at scholars, the national language did not dominate. In literature fields, the language of the object of study was most important, while in language and linguistics, the object language was not always more important than English. The study indicates that both journal articles and book output need to be included in bibliometric evaluation. Citation impact analysis is shown to be informative in bibliometric assessment in this field, especially when a five-year citation window is used. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Anton J Nederhof, 2011. "A bibliometric study of productivity and impact of modern language and literature research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 117-129, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:20:y:2011:i:2:p:117-129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820211X12941371876508
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ronald Snijder, 2016. "Revisiting an open access monograph experiment: measuring citations and tweets 5 years later," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1855-1875, December.
    2. Beril T. Arik & Engin Arik, 2017. "“Second Language Writing” Publications in Web of Science: A Bibliometric Analysis," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, March.
    3. Chi, Pei-Shan, 2016. "Differing disciplinary citation concentration patterns of book and journal literature?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 814-829.
    4. Verleysen, Frederik T. & Weeren, Arie, 2016. "Clustering by publication patterns of senior authors in the social sciences and humanities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 254-272.
    5. Mingkun Wei & Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli, 2020. "Evaluating the relationship between the academic and social impact of open access books based on citation behaviors and social media attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2401-2420, December.
    6. Chien Hsiang Liao & Mu-Yen Chen, 2018. "Exploring knowledge patterns of library and information science journals within the field: a citation analysis from 2009 to 2016," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1991-2008, December.
    7. Jessie S. Barrot, 2017. "Research impact and productivity of Southeast Asian countries in language and linguistics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 1-15, January.
    8. Danielle Lee, 2023. "Bibliometric analysis of Asian ‘language and linguistics’ research: A case of 13 countries," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-23, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rseval:v:20:y:2011:i:2:p:117-129. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.