References
- Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
- Archambault, E., Vignola-Gagné, E., Côté, G., Lavrivére, V., & Gringras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, Vol. 68, No. 3, pp. 329–342. Doi: 10.1007/s11192-006-0115-z.
- Bazeley, P. (2010). Conceptualizing research performance. Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 889–903. Doi: 10.1080/03075070903348404.
- Belcher, B. M., Rasmussen, K. E., Kemshaw, M. R., & Zornes, D. A. (2016). Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context. Research Evaluation, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 1–17. Doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvv025.
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 77–101. Doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
- Brewer, J. D. (2011). The impact of impact. Research Evaluation, Vol. 20, No. (3), pp. 255–256. Doi: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876869.
- 7. Bridges, D. (2009). Research Quality Assessment in Education: Impossible Science, Possible Art?. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 497–517. Doi: 10.1080/01411920903111565.
- Brooks, R. L. (2005). Measuring university quality. The Review of Higher Education, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 1–21. Doi: 10.1353/rhe.2005.0061.
- Butler, L., & Visser, M. S. (2006). Extending citation analysis to non-source items. Scientometrics, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 327–343. Doi: 10.1007/s11192-006-0024-1.
- Chatterji, M. (2008). Comments on Slavin: Synthesizing Evidence From Impact Evaluations in Education to Inform Action. Educational Researcher, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 22–26. Doi: 10.3102/0013189X08314287.
- Criteria for academic and scientific promotion (2004). Avialabe at: http://www.ucg.ac.me/objava/blog/3/objava/42-dokumenti. [Assessed 10/08/2023].
- Criteria for academic and scientific promotion (2016). http://www.ucg.ac.me/skladiste/blog_3/objava_42/fajlovi/Nova%20mjerila.pdf. [Assessed 10/08/2023].
- Donovan, C. (2007). The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 585–597. Doi: 10.3152/030234207X256538.
- Dubreta, N. (2014). Integration of social sciences and humanities into mechanical engineering curriculum. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems: INDECS, 12(2), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.7906/indecs.11.2.3
- Elliott, J. (2001). Making Evidence-based Practice Educational. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 555–574. Doi: 10.1080/01411920120095735.
- Engels, T. C., Ossenblok, T. L., & Spruyt, E. H. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics, Vol. 93, No. 2, pp. 373–390. Doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0680-2.
- Fern, E. F. (2001). Advanced Focus Group Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
- Finkenstaedt, T. (1990). Measuring research performance in the humanities. Scientometrics, Vol. 19, pp. 409–417. Doi: 10.1007/BF02020703.
- Fish, W. (2010). Philosophy of Perception. A Contemporary Introduction. New York, London: Routledge.
- Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Giménez-Toledo, E., & Román-Román, A. (2009). Assessment of humanities and social sciences monographs through their publishers: A review and a study towards a model of evaluation. Research Evaluation, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 201–213. Doi: 10.3152/095820209X471986.
- Giménez-Toledo, E., Tejada-Artigas, C., & Mañana-Rodriguez, J. (2013). Evaluation of scientific books’ publishers in social sciences and humanities: Results of a survey. Research Evaluation, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 64–77. Doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvs036
- Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1999). A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Information Processing & Management, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 31–44. Doi: 10.1016/S0306-4573%2898%2900028-4.
- Glänzel, W. & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W. & Schmoch, U. (eds) Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems, (pp. 257–276), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Glänzel, W. (1996). A bibliometric approach to social sciences, national research performances in 6 selected social science areas, 1990–1992. Scientometrics, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 291–307. Doi: 10.1007/BF02016902.
- Gogolin, I., Åström, F., & Hansen, A. (Eds.) (2014). Assessing Quality in European Educational Research Indicators and Approaches. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
- Grančay, M., Vveinhardt, J., & Šumilo, E. (2017). Publish or perish how Central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015. Scientometrics, Vol. 111, No. 3, pp. 1813–1837. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2332-z.
- Grosu, V., Brinzaru, S. M., Ciubotariu, M. S., Kicsi, R., Hlaciuc, E., & Socoliuc, M. (2022). Mapping Future Trends in Integrated Reporting, CSR and Business Sustainability Research: A Cluster-based Approach. ENTRENOVA-ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion, 8(1), 264–286. https://doi.org/10.54820/entrenova-2022-00024
- Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education. The Battle for World-Class Excellence. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Hellqvist, B. (2010). Referencing in the Humanities and its Implications for Citation Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 310–318. Doi: 10.1002/asi.21256.
- Hemlin, S. (1996). Social studies of the humanities. A case study of research conditions and performance in Ancient History and Classical Archaeology and English. Research Evaluation, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 53–61. Doi: 10.1093/rev/6.1.53.
- Hicks, D. (2004). The Four literatures of social science. In Moed, H. F, Glänzel, W. & Schmoch, U. (eds) Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems, (pp. 473–496), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520. Doi: 10.1038/520429a.
- Howe, R. K. (2004). A Critique of Experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 42–61. Doi: 10.1177/1077800403259491.
- Hunady, J., Orviska, M., & Pisar, P. (2017). The link between human resources in science and technology and regional economic development in the EU. ENTRENOVA-ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion, 3(1), 382-388.
- Janinovic, J., Pekovic, S., Vuckovic, D., Popovic, S., Djokovic, R., & Pejić Bach, M. (2020). Innovative strategies for creating and assessing research quality and societal impact in social sciences and humanities. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems: INDECS, 18(4), 449-458. https://doi.org/10.7906/indecs.18.4.5
- Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Lewison, G. (2001), Evaluation of books as research outputs in history of medicine. Research Evaluation, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 89–95. Doi: 10.3152/147154401781777051.
- McGettigan, A. (2013). The Great University Gamble. Money, Markets and the Future of Higher Education. London: Pluto Press.
- Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Nagy, A. M. (2016). International Scientific Collaboration Links of Central Eastern European Countries Measured Through Publications. ENTRENOVA-ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion, 2(1), 11-17.
- Nederhof, A. J., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1993). A bibliometric analysis of six economics research groups: A comparison with peer review. Research Policy, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 353–368. Doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(93)90005-3.
- Nederhof, A. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (1991). Quality judgements of journals as indicators of research performance in the humanities and the social and behavioral sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 332–340. Doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199106)42:5%3C332::AID-ASI3%3E3.0.CO;2-8.
- Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: a review. Scientometrics, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 81–100. Doi: 10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2.
- Nederhof, A. J., Zwaan, R. A., De Bruin, R. E., & Dekker, P. (1989). Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social sciences: A comparative study. Scientometrics, Vol. 15, No. 5–6, pp. 423–435. Doi: 10.1007/BF02017063.
- Ochsner, M., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H. D. (2012). Indicators for research quality in the humanities: opportunities and limitations. Bibliometrie—Praxis und Forschung, 1/4. Doi: 10.5283/bpf.157.
- Ochsner, M., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H. D. (2013). Four types of research in the humanities: Setting the stage for research quality criteria in the humanities. Research Evaluation, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 79–92. Doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvs039.
- Ochsner, M., Hug, S. E. & Daniel, H. D. (2014). Setting the stage for assessing research quality in the humanities: Consolidating the results of four empirical studies. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 111–132. Doi: 10.1007/s11618-014-0576-4.
- Ochsner, M., Hug, S. E. & Daniel, H. D. (Eds.) (2016). Research assessment in the humanities. Cham: Springer International (Springer Open).
- Pajić, D. (2015). Globalization of the social sciences in Eastern Europe: Genuine breakthrough or a slippery slope of the research evaluation practice? Scientometrics, Vol. 102, No. 3, pp. 2131–2150. Doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1510-5.
- Pejić Bach, M., Ivec, A., & Hrman, D. (2023). Industrial Informatics: Emerging Trends and Applications in the Era of Big Data and AI. Electronics, 12(10), 2238. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12102238
- Perić, B., Ochsner, M., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H. D. (2013). Arts and Humanities Research Assessment Bibliography (AHRABi). Zürich: ETH Zurich.
- Stack, M. (2016). Global University Rankings and the Mediatization of Higher Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Šuštaršič, A., Videmšek, M., Karpljuk, D., Miloloža, I., & Meško, M. (2022). Big Data in Sports: A Bibliometric and Topic Study. Business Systems Research: International Journal of the Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, 13(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2022-0002
- Swygart-Hobaugh, A. J. (2004). A citation analysis of the quantitative/qualitative methods debate's reflection in sociology research: Implications for library collection development. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp: 180–195. Doi: 10.1016/j.lcats.2004.02.003.
- Urošević, B., & Pavlović, D. (2013). Istraživanja u društvenim naukama u Srbiji posle 1990. godine. Političke perspektive, 3(2), 103-128. Available at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/146913
- Vilig, K. (2016). Kvalitativna istraživanja u psihologiji, [Qualitative Research in Psychology]. Beograd: Clio, (in Serbian).
- Wilig, C., & Stainton Rogers, W. (Eds.) (2008). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. London: Sage.
- Zuccala, A. (2012). Quality and influence in literary work: evaluating the “educated imagination”. Research Evaluation, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 229–241. Doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvs017.