Multilingual publishing in the social sciences and humanities: A seven‐country European study

We investigate the state of multilingualism across the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using a comprehensive data set of research outputs from seven European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Flanders [Belgium], Norway, Poland, and Slovenia). Although English tends to be the dominant language of science, SSH researchers often produce culturally and societally relevant work in their local languages. We collected and analyzed a set of 164,218 peer‐reviewed journal articles (produced by 51,063 researchers from 2013 to 2015) and found that multilingualism is prevalent despite geographical location and field. Among the researchers who published at least three journal articles during this time period, over one‐third from the various countries had written their work in at least two languages. The highest share of researchers who published in only one language were from Flanders (80.9%), whereas the lowest shares were from Slovenia (57.2%) and Poland (59.3%). Our findings show that multilingual publishing is an ongoing practice in many SSH research fields regardless of geographical location, political situation, and/or historical heritage. Here we argue that research is international, but multilingual publishing keeps locally relevant research alive with the added potential for creating impact.

[1]  Mohammad Hosseini,et al.  The norms of authorship credit: Challenging the definition of authorship in The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity , 2020, Accountability in research.

[2]  Emanuel Kulczycki,et al.  Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries , 2018, Scientometrics.

[3]  D. Hicks.  The Four Literatures of Social Science , 2004 .

[4]  L. Boroditsky.  Does Language Shape Thought?: Mandarin and English Speakers' Conceptions of Time , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  Frederik T. Verleysen,et al.  Clustering by publication patterns of senior authors in the social sciences and humanities , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[6]  Ken Hyland,et al.  Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice , 2016 .

[7]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems , 2004 .

[8]  Kaare Aagaard,et al.  How incentives trickle down: Local use of a national bibliometric indicator system , 2015 .

[9]  M. Gordin,et al.  Scientific Babel: How Science Was Done Before and After Global English , 2015 .

[10]  D. Hicks,et al.  Reception of Spanish sociology by domestic and foreign audiences differs and has consequences for evaluation , 2015 .

[11]  Frederik T. Verleysen,et al.  Mapping Diversity of Publication Patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities: An Approach Making Use of Fuzzy Cluster Analysis , 2017, J. Data Inf. Sci..

[12]  Michael Ochsner,et al.  The Diversity of European Research Evaluation Systems , 2018 .

[13]  Dyna Rochmyaningsih,et al.  How to shine in Indonesian science? Game the system. , 2019, Science.

[14]  Emanuel Kulczycki,et al.  Assessing publications through a bibliometric indicator: The case of comprehensive evaluation of scientific units in Poland , 2017 .

[15]  Tim C. E. Engels,et al.  Comprehensiveness of national bibliographic databases for social sciences and humanities: Findings from a European survey , 2018, Research Evaluation.

[16]  Weishu Liu,et al.  The changing role of non‐English papers in scholarly communication: Evidence from Web of Science's three journal citation indexes , 2017, Learn. Publ..

[17]  Emanuel Kulczycki,et al.  Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? , 2018, Aslib J. Inf. Manag..

[18]  Judith Sutz,et al.  Academic Evaluation: Universal Instrument? Tool for Development? , 2016 .

[19]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Why Researchers Publish in Non-Mainstream Journals: Training, Knowledge Bridging and Gap-Filling , 2017 .

[20]  S. Rijcke,et al.  Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics , 2015, Nature.

[21]  D. Hicks.  Performance-based university research funding systems , 2012 .

[22]  Fei Shu,et al.  Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999-2016) , 2017, Aslib J. Inf. Manag..

[23]  Brigitte Tiefenthaler,et al.  Counting quality? The Czech performance-based research funding system , 2015 .

[24]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  The differing meanings of indicators under different policy contexts. The case of internationalisation , 2019, Evaluative Informetrics: The Art of Metrics-Based Research Assessment.

[25]  Peter Dahler-Larsen.  The new configuration of metrics, rules, and guidelines creates a disturbing ambiguity in academia , 2017 .

[26]  M. Neff,et al.  Publication incentives undermine the utility of science: Ecological research in Mexico , 2018 .

[27]  Elea Giménez-Toledo,et al.  Coverage of Spanish social sciences and humanities journals by national and international databases , 2011, Inf. Res..

[28]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Changing Incentives to Publish , 2011, Science.

[29]  吉田 仁美,et al.  Strength in Diversity , 2019, Bridging Communities through Socially Engaged Art.

[30]  Alicia Wise,et al.  Society Publishers Accelerating Open Access and Plan S (SPA OPS): final project report , 2019 .

[31]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management , 2015 .

[32]  Ulrich Ammon,et al.  Linguistic inequality and its effects on participation in scientific discourse and on global knowledge accumulation – With a closer look at the problems of the second-rank language communities , 2012 .

[33]  Adèle Paul-Hus,et al.  The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis , 2015, Scientometrics.

[34]  Eric H. J. Spruyt,et al.  Changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009 , 2012, Scientometrics.

[35]  Adele Paul-Hus,et al.  Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999-2016) , 2017 .