This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
Bazeley, P. (2010). Conceptualizing research performance. Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 889–903. Doi: 10.1080/03075070903348404.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
Brewer, J. D. (2011). The impact of impact. Research Evaluation, Vol. 20, No. (3), pp. 255–256. Doi: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876869.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
Criteria for academic and scientific promotion (2004). Avialabe at: http://www.ucg.ac.me/objava/blog/3/objava/42-dokumenti. [Assessed 10/08/2023].Search in Google Scholar
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].Search in Google Scholar
Donovan, C. (2007). The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 585–597. Doi: 10.3152/030234207X256538.Search in Google Scholar
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.11.2.3Search in Google Scholar
Elliott, J. (2001). Making Evidence-based Practice Educational. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 555–574. Doi: 10.1080/01411920120095735.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
Finkenstaedt, T. (1990). Measuring research performance in the humanities. Scientometrics, Vol. 19, pp. 409–417. Doi: 10.1007/BF02020703.Search in Google Scholar
Fish, W. (2010). Philosophy of Perception. A Contemporary Introduction. New York, London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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/rvs036Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
Gogolin, I., Åström, F., & Hansen, A. (Eds.) (2014). Assessing Quality in European Educational Research Indicators and Approaches. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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-2022-00024Search in Google Scholar
Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education. The Battle for World-Class Excellence. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
Howe, R. K. (2004). A Critique of Experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 42–61. Doi: 10.1177/1077800403259491.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.18.4.5Search in Google Scholar
Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
McGettigan, A. (2013). The Great University Gamble. Money, Markets and the Future of Higher Education. London: Pluto Press.Search in Google Scholar
Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.Search in Google Scholar
Nagy, A. M. (2016). International Scientific Collaboration Links of Central Eastern European Countries Measured Through Publications. ENTRENOVA-ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion, 2(1), 11-17.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
Ochsner, M., Hug, S. E. & Daniel, H. D. (Eds.) (2016). Research assessment in the humanities. Cham: Springer International (Springer Open).Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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/electronics12102238Search in Google Scholar
Perić, B., Ochsner, M., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H. D. (2013). Arts and Humanities Research Assessment Bibliography (AHRABi). Zürich: ETH Zurich.Search in Google Scholar
Stack, M. (2016). Global University Rankings and the Mediatization of Higher Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
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-2022-0002Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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/146913Search in Google Scholar
Vilig, K. (2016). Kvalitativna istraživanja u psihologiji, [Qualitative Research in Psychology]. Beograd: Clio, (in Serbian).Search in Google Scholar
Wilig, C., & Stainton Rogers, W. (Eds.) (2008). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar