Typifying scientific output
a bibliometric analysis of archaeological publishing across the science/humanities spectrum (2009–2013)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/21662282.2016.1190508Keywords:
Archaeology, bibliometrics, citation analysis, division of labor, epistemology, science/humanities divideAbstract
This article presents the results of a bibliometric analysis conducted on all original research papers published in six high-ranking archaeological journals between 2009 and 2013, consisting of 926 papers. The purpose is to identify the general features characterizing the output of archaeological publishing within the given time frame and to discuss the results in light of the science/humanities divide of archaeology. It expands previous work, covering not just scientific or humanistic parts of archaeology, but sub-disciplinary niches across the science/humanities-spectrum. Significant differences are identified amongst the journals on an array of parameters, including journal statistics, citation network, thematic distribution, the application of methods and the direction of relevance to other sub-fields. Most significantly, established correlations of academic publishing are for the first time identified in archaeology, regarding the structure of citation networks, the connectedness of high-ranking journals and how specific affiliations to either side of the science/humanities divide affect publishing. In the end, these results are taken to represent a sub-optimal division of labor between archaeological sub-fields, tentatively explained by the continued relevance of the science/humanities divide in archaeology, by providing diverse epistemic underpinnings.
References
Batista, P.D., Campiteli, M.G., and Kinouchi, O., 2006. Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68 (1), 179-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0090-4
Bellis, N.D., 2009. Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the science citation index to cybermetrics. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Binford, L.R., 1962. Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity, 28 (2), 217-225. https://doi.org/10.2307/278380
Broadus, R.N., 1987. Toward a definition of "bibliometrics.". Scientometrics, 12 (5-6), 373-379. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016680
Brookes, B. C., 1990 Biblio-, sciento-, infor-metrics??? What are we talking about. In: L. Egghe and R. Rousseau (eds). Proceedings 1st International Conference on Bibliometrics and Theoretical Aspects of Information Retrieval. London: Reuters Ltd.
Brughmans, T., 2013. Networks of networks: a citation network analysis of the adoption, use, and adaptation of formal network techniques in archaeology. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 28 (4), 538-562. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqt048
Butzer, K.W., 2009. Evolution of an interdisciplinary enterprise: the Journal of Archaeological Science at 35 years. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36 (9), 1842-1846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.04.011
Clarke, D.L., 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen.
Cleland, C.E., 2001. Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology, 29 (11), 987. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029<0987:HSESAT>2.0.CO;2
Cleland, C.E., 2002. Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69 (3), 447-451. https://doi.org/10.1086/342455
Cleland, C.E., 2011. Prediction and explanation in historical natural science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62 (3), 551-582. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axq024
Cleland, C.E. and Brindell, S., 2013. Science and the messy, uncontrollable world of nature. In: M. Pigliucci and M. Boudry, eds.. Philosophy of pseudoscience: reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 183. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0011
Davidson, I., 2010. A lecture by the returning chair of Australian studies, Harvard University 2008-09. Journal of Australian Studies, 34 (3), 377-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/14443058.2010.498494
Fahlander, F., 2012. ARE WE THERE YET? Archaeology and the postmodern in the new millennium. Current Swedish Archaeology, 20, 109-129.
Fanelli, D. and Glänzel, W., 2013. Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 8 (6), e66938. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066938
Garfield, E., 1979. Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities. Philadelphia: Isi Press.
Glänzel, W., 2002. A concise introduction to bibliometrics & its history. Available from: https://www.ecoom.be/en/research/bibliometrics [Accessed 28 October 2014].
Gross, P.L.K. and Gross, E.M., 1927. College libraries and chemical education. Science, 66 (1713), 385-389. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.66.1713.385
Hodder, I., 2012. Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jones, A., 2004. Archaeometry and materiality: materialsbased analysis in theory and practice*. Archaeometry, 46 (3), 327-338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2004.00161.x
Kristiansen, K., 2004. Genes versus agents. A discussion of the widening theoretical gap in archaeology. Archaeological Dialogues, 11 (2), 77-99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203805211509
Kristiansen, K., 2014, Towards a new paradigm? The third science revolution and its possible consequences in archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology, 22 (1), 11-40.
Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., and Archambault, É., 2009. The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21011
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (4), 858-862. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21011
Larivière, V., Lozano, G.A., and Gingras, Y., 2014. Are elite journals declining?. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65 (4), 649-655. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23005
Leydesdorff, L., Hammarfelt, B., and Salah, A., 2011. The structure of the arts & humanities citation index: A mapping on the basis of aggregated citations among 1,157 journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (12), 2414-2426. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21636
Lotka, A.J., 1926, The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16 (12), 317-324.
Lozano, G.A., Larivière, V., and Gingras, Y., 2012. The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63 (11), 2140- 2145. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22731
Lyman, R.L. and O'Brien, M.J., 2004. Nomothetic science and idiographic history in twentieth-century Americanist anthropology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 40 (1), 77-96. https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)
Mallía, M.S. and Vidal, A.S., 2009. From the opposite corner: a bibliometric analysis of research on American archaeology in European publications. Archaeologies, 5 (3), 446- 467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-009-9118-8
Marriner, N., 2009. Currents and trends in the archaeological sciences. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36 (12), 2811- 2815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.09.009
Mays, S., 2010. Human osteoarchaeology in the UK 2001-2007: a bibliometric perspective. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 20 (2), 192-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.1021
Nalimov, V.V. and Mulchenko, B.M., 1971. Measurement of science: study of the development of science as an information process. Washington, DC: Foregin Technology Division.
Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., and Rowland, F., 2008. The citation advantage of open-access articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (12), 1963-1972. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20898
O'Brien, M.J., Lyman, R.L., and Leonard, R.D., 1998. Basic incompatibilities between evolutionary and behavioral archaeology. American Antiquity, 63 (3), 485. https://doi.org/10.2307/2694632
Palomar, T., García-Heras, M., and Villegas, M.A., 2009, Archaeological and historical glasses: A bibliometric study. BOLETIN DE LA SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE ARTICULO Cerámica Y Vidrio, 48 (4), 187-194.
Penfield, T., et al., 2014. Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Research Evaluation, 23 (1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt021
Polanyi, M., 1958. Personal knowledge. The University of Chicago Press. Available from: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo3628989.html
Price, D.S., 1961. Science since Babylon. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Price, D.S., 1963. Little science, big science. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/pric91844
Pritchard, A., 1969. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25 (4). Available from: http://www.academia.edu/598618/Statistical_bibliography_or_bibliometrics
Ravichandra, R.I.K., 1983. Quantitative methods for library and information science. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern.
Rubin, R., 2010. Foundations of Library and Information Science, Third Edition. Third Edition edition. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.
Shennan, S., 2004. Analytical archaeology. In: J. Bintliff, eds. A companion to archaeology. Malden: Willey- Blackwell, 3-20.
Solomon, D.J., Laakso, M., and Björk, B.-C., 2013. A longitudinal comparison of citation rates and growth among open access journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7 (3), 642- 650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.03.008
Trigger, B.G., 1998. Archaeology and epistemology: dialoguing across the Darwinian chasm. American Journal of Archaeology, 102 (1), 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/506135
Trigger, B.G., 2006. A history of archaeological thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trigger, B.G., 2008. "Alternative archaeologies" in historical perspective. In: J. Habu, C. Fawcett, and J.M. Matsunaga, eds.. Evaluating multiple narratives. New York, NY: Springer, 187-195. Available from: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-71825-5_12 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71825-5_12
Weale, A.R., Bailey, M., and Lear, P.A., 2004. The level of noncitation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: a comparison to the impact factor. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 4 (1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-4-14
Webmoor, T., 2007. What about "one more turn after the social" in archaeological reasoning? Taking things seriously. World Archaeology, 39 (4), 563-578. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438240701679619
Weisberg, M. and Muldoon, R., 2009. Epistemic landscapes and the division of cognitive labor. Philosophy of Science, 76 (2), 225-252. https://doi.org/10.1086/644786
Whewell, W., 1840. The philosophy of the inductive sciences: founded upon their history. Vol. in two volumes, London: John W. Parker.
Whitley, P.J., 2001. The archaeology of ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Windelband, W., 1921. An introduction to philosophy. London: Unwin.
Windelband, W., 1998. History and natural science. Theory & Psychology, 8 (1), 5-22. (Original work delivered 1894.). https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354398081001
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Counting from volume 11 (2022), articles published in DJA are licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). The editorial board may accept other Creative Commons licenses for individual articles, if required by funding bodies e.g. the European Research Council. With the publication of volume 11, authors retain copyright to their articles and give DJA the right to the first publication. The authors retain copyright to earlier versions of the articles, such as the submitted and the accepted manuscript.
Articles in volume 1-8 are not licensed under Creative Commons. In these volumes, all rights are reserved to DJA. This implies that readers can download, read, and link to the articles, but they cannot republish the articles. Authors can upload their articles in an institutional repository as a part of a green open access policy.
Articles in volume 9-10 are not licensed under Creative Commons. In these volumes, all rights are reserved to the authors of the articles respectively. This implies that readers can download, read, and link to the articles, but they cannot republish the articles. Authors can upload their articles in an institutional repository.
