References
- 1Butler L, Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas, Research Evaluation, 2003, 12(1), 39–46; DOI: 10.3152/147154403781776780 (accessed 16 October 2018).
- 2Hoffman A J, In Praise of ‘B’ Journals, Inside Higher Ed, 2017:
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/03/28/academics-shouldnt-focus-only-prestigious-journals-essay (accessed 16 October 2018). - 3Butler, ref. 1.
- 4Hoffman, ref. 2.
- 5Haustein S and Lariviere V,
The Use of Bibliometrics for Assessing Research: Possibilities, Limitations and Adverse Effects . In: Incentives and Performance: Governance of Research Organizations, Ed Welpe I M et al., 2015, Springer International Publishing, London, pp. 121–139; DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_8 (accessed 17 October 2018). - 6Moore S, Neylon C, Eve M P, O’Donnell D P and Pattinson D, “Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence, Palgrave Communications 3, 2017, 16105; DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.105 (accessed 16 October 2018).
- 7Sivertsen G, Patterns of internationalization and criteria for research assessment in the social sciences and humanities, Scientometrics, 2016, 107(2), 357–368; DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1845-1 (accessed 16 October 2018).
- 8Modern Language Association, Guidelines for Evaluating Work in Digital Humanities and Digital Media, 2012:
https://www.mla.org/About-Us/Governance/Committees/Committee-Listings/Professional-Issues/Committee-on-Information-Technology/Guidelines-for-Evaluating-Work-in-Digital-Humanities-and-Digital-Media (accessed 16 October 2018). - 9American Historical Association, Ad Hoc Committee on the Evaluation of Digital Scholarship by Historians, Guidelines for the Professional Evaluation of Digital Scholarship by Historians, 2015:
https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/digital-history-resources/evaluation-of-digital-scholarship-in-history/guidelines-for-the-professional-evaluation-of-digital-scholarship-by-historians (accessed 16 October 2018). - 10American Anthropological Association, AAA Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion Review: Communicating Public Scholarship in Anthropology, 2017:
http://www.americananthro.org/AdvanceYourCareer/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=21713 (accessed 16 October 2018). - 11Curry S, Let’s move beyond the rhetoric: it’s time to change how we judge research, Nature, 2018, 554(147); DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-01642-w (accessed 16 October 2018).
- 12Schimanski L A & Alperin J P, The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future, F1000Research, 2018, 7, 1605; DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.16493.1 (accessed 16 October 2018).
- 13Ball C, Barrett K, Berkery P, Clemons J, Crosby S, Falk-Krzesinski H J and Konkiel S, Promotion & Tenure Reform Workgroup Report, Open Scholarship Initiative Proceedings, 2017, 2(0):
https://journals.gmu.edu/osi/article/view/1928 (accessed 16 October 2018). - 14De Rijcke S, Wouters P F, Rushforth A D, Franssen T P and Hammarfelt B, Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use – a literature review, Research Evaluation, 2016, 25(2), 161–169; DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvv038 (accessed 16 October 2018).
- 15Ochsner M, Hug S E, Daniel H D, Research assessment in the humanities: Towards criteria and procedures, 2016, Springer International Publishing, London; DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4 (accessed 16 October 2018).
- 16Guetzkow J, Lamont M and Mallard G, What is Originality in the Social Sciences and the Humanities?, American Sociological Review, 2004, 69(2), 190–212; DOI: 10.1177/000312240406900203 (accessed 24 October 2018).
- 17Gogolin I, Åström and Hansen A,
Approaches on Assessing Quality in European Educational Research Introduction to the volume . In: Assessing Quality in European Educational Research: Indicators and Approaches, Ed Gogolin I, Åström F and Hansen A, 2014, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden; DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-05969-9_1 (accessed 16 October 2018). - 18Hammarfelt B, Following the Footnotes: A Bibliometric Analysis of Citation Patterns in Literary Studies, 2012, Uppsala: Uppsala University:
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hb:diva-280 (accessed 16 October 2018). - 19Ochsner M, Hug S and Galleron I, The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures, Palgrave Communications, 2017: DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2017.20 (accessed 16 October 2018).
- 20De Rijcke S et al., ref. 14.
- 21Ochsner M et al., ref. 15.
- 22Hammarfelt B, An examination of the possibilities that altmetric methods offer in the case of the humanities (RIP), Proceedings of ISSI 2013 – 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, 2013, 1, 720–727.
- 23Belfiore E, ‘Impact’, ‘value’ and ‘bad economics’: Making sense of the problem of value in the arts and humanities, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 2014; DOI: 10.1177/1474022214531503 (accessed 16 October 2018).
- 24HuMetricsHSS Initiative:
www.humetricshss.org (accessed 16 October 2018). - 25Triangle SCI:
https://trianglesci.org/about/ (accessed 24 October 2018). - 26Ochsner M et al., ref. 15.