The Four Literatures of Social Science

By Diana Hicks. 2004

394 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b51038a51e25f5e690b48096ddc28dcf4257f691

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistics and Probability

1. Yves Gingras
2. S. Mosbah-Natanson
3. Anton J. Nederhof
4. Loet Leydesdorff
5. Ludo Waltman
6. Peter van den Besselaar

Citations in the corpus

• The globalization of social sciences? Evidence from a quantitative analysis of 30 years of production, collaboration and citations in the social sciences (1980–2009) (2014, background): “Another limitation is the focus on academic journals while it has been documented that publications in the social sciences do not follow the same dissemination practices as the natural sciences (Hicks, 2004; Kishida and Matsui, 1997).”
• Bias against Novelty in Science: A Cautionary Tale for Users of Bibliometric Indicators (2017, neutral): “the insufficient coverage of WoS for humanities and social sciences (Hicks, 2004).”
• Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review (2006, background): “…VAN RAAN, 1988, MOED et al., 2004), bibliometrical citation analysis has been extended to monitoring of research in social sciences and humanities (e.g., FINKENSTAEDT, 1990; GARFIELD, 1979; KATZ, 1999; HICKS, 1999, 2004; NEDERHOF et al., 1989; NEDERHOF & ZWAAN, 1991; PLETTE, 1993; VAN RAAN, 1998).”