IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/eurjdr/v34y2022i3d10.1057_s41287-021-00433-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implications of Cross-disciplinarity: Estimating the “Paper Drain” in Development Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Sergio Tezanos

    (Universidad de Cantabria)

  • Carmen Trueba

    (Universidad de Cantabria)

Abstract

Why does the cross-disciplinary field of “development studies” have relatively low “journal impact indicators” in comparison with other mono-disciplinary fields of study? We argue that a reasonable explanation is the existence of a “paper drain” phenomenon: a certain proportion of the papers dealing with development is eventually published in journals that are assigned to other (non-development) fields. We conceptualize the paper drain phenomenon and empirically estimate its size for the field of development studies. Running an algorithmic procedure on the Scopus database, we identify six “key development issues” and estimate that the subject category of “development” is approximately publishing 28% of the papers dealings with these issues within the Social Sciences. The remaining 72% are “draining” to other (non-development) categories. We offer some recommendations in order to rise the scientific impact (and influence) of development studies, such as increasing the number of journals covered by the impact indicators.

Suggested Citation

  • Sergio Tezanos & Carmen Trueba, 2022. "Implications of Cross-disciplinarity: Estimating the “Paper Drain” in Development Studies," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(3), pages 1542-1572, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:eurjdr:v:34:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1057_s41287-021-00433-w
    DOI: 10.1057/s41287-021-00433-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41287-021-00433-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41287-021-00433-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. E. Garfield & I. H. Sher, 1963. "New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(3), pages 195-201, July.
    2. David Hulme & John Toye, 2006. "The case for cross-disciplinary social science research on poverty, inequality and well-being," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(7), pages 1085-1107.
    3. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    4. González-Pereira, Borja & Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P. & Moya-Anegón, Félix, 2010. "A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 379-391.
    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. Wolfgang Glänzel & Henk F. Moed, 2013. "Opinion paper: thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 381-394, July.
    2. Dzieżyc, Maciej & Kazienko, Przemysław, 2022. "Effectiveness of research grants funded by European Research Council and Polish National Science Centre," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    3. Xu, Shuqi & Mariani, Manuel Sebastian & Lü, Linyuan & Medo, Matúš, 2020. "Unbiased evaluation of ranking metrics reveals consistent performance in science and technology citation data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).
    4. Weibin Wang & Zheng Wang & Tian Yu & CholMyong Pak & Guang Yu, 2020. "Research on citation mention times and contributions using a neural network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2383-2400, December.
    5. Kun Lu & Isola Ajiferuke & Dietmar Wolfram, 2014. "Extending citer analysis to journal impact evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(1), pages 245-260, July.
    6. Fuad T. Aleskerov & Vladimir V. Pislyakov & Timur V. Vitkup, 2014. "Ranking Journals In Economics, Management And Political Sciences By The Threshold Aggregation Procedure," HSE Working papers WP BRP 73/EC/2014, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    7. William M. Cockriel & James B. McDonald, 2018. "The influence of dispersion on journal impact measures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 609-622, July.
    8. Lu Liu & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi & Dashun Wang, 2023. "Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1046-1058, July.
    9. Zahid Halim & Shafaq Khan, 2019. "A data science-based framework to categorize academic journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 393-423, April.
    10. Mingkun Wei, 2020. "Research on impact evaluation of open access journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1027-1049, February.
    11. Mingers, John & Yang, Liying, 2017. "Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 323-337.
    12. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & Jonathan Adams, 2019. "The integrated impact indicator revisited (I3*): a non-parametric alternative to the journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1669-1694, June.
    13. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    14. Juan Gorraiz & Ursula Ulrych & Wolfgang Glänzel & Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado & Daniel Torres-Salinas, 2022. "Measuring the excellence contribution at the journal level: an alternative to Garfield’s impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7229-7251, December.
    15. Gianfranco Ennas & Battista Biggio & Maria Chiara Di Guardo, 2015. "Data-driven journal meta-ranking in business and management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1911-1929, December.
    16. Mariani, Manuel Sebastian & Medo, Matúš & Zhang, Yi-Cheng, 2016. "Identification of milestone papers through time-balanced network centrality," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1207-1223.
    17. Elizabeth S. Vieira & José A. N. F. Gomes, 2011. "The journal relative impact: an indicator for journal assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 631-651, November.
    18. Pin Li & Guoli Yang & Chuanqi Wang, 2019. "Visual topical analysis of library and information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1753-1791, December.
    19. Rabishankar Giri & Sabuj Kumar Chaudhuri, 2021. "Ranking journals through the lens of active visibility," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2189-2208, March.
    20. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).

    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:pal:eurjdr:v:34:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1057_s41287-021-00433-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.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.