Assessing the Appraisal of Research Quality in Social Sciences and Humanities: A Case Study of the University of Montenegro

1 Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Search in Google Scholar

2 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

3 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

4 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

5 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

6 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

8 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

9 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

10 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

11 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

12 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

13 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

14 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 Search in Google Scholar

15 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

16 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

17 Fern, E. F. (2001). Advanced Focus Group Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Search in Google Scholar

18 Finkenstaedt, T. (1990). Measuring research performance in the humanities. Scientometrics, Vol. 19, pp. 409–417. Doi: 10.1007/BF02020703. Search in Google Scholar

19 Fish, W. (2010). Philosophy of Perception. A Contemporary Introduction. New York, London: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

20 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

21 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

22 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 Search in Google Scholar

23 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

24 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

25 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

26 Gogolin, I., Åström, F., & Hansen, A. (Eds.) (2014). Assessing Quality in European Educational Research Indicators and Approaches. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Search in Google Scholar

27 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

28 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 Search in Google Scholar

29 Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education. The Battle for World-Class Excellence. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Search in Google Scholar

30 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

31 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

32 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

33 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

34 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

35 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

36 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 Search in Google Scholar

37 Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Search in Google Scholar

38 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

39 McGettigan, A. (2013). The Great University Gamble. Money, Markets and the Future of Higher Education. London: Pluto Press. Search in Google Scholar

40 Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer. Search in Google Scholar

41 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

42 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

43 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

44 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

45 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

46 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

47 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

48 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

49 Ochsner, M., Hug, S. E. & Daniel, H. D. (Eds.) (2016). Research assessment in the humanities. Cham: Springer International (Springer Open). Search in Google Scholar

50 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

51 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 Search in Google Scholar

52 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

53 Stack, M. (2016). Global University Rankings and the Mediatization of Higher Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Search in Google Scholar

54 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 Search in Google Scholar

55 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

56 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 Search in Google Scholar

57 Vilig, K. (2016). Kvalitativna istraživanja u psihologiji, [Qualitative Research in Psychology]. Beograd: Clio, (in Serbian). Search in Google Scholar

58 Wilig, C., & Stainton Rogers, W. (Eds.) (2008). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. London: Sage. Search in Google Scholar

59 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