Abstract

In 2010 Thomson launched a new citation index devoted to books: the Book citation index. This new database has opened new possibilities for analyzing fields such as the Humanities and Social Sciences from a bibliometric point of view. However we still know little about their coverage and especially about the scientific publishers that have been taken into account in the construction of this citation database. In this paper we analyze the BKCI coverage: countries, languages, concentration of publishers and finally we compare the database with Scholarly publishers indicators (SPI), produced in Spain by CCHS/CSIC. The conclusion is that Thomson is making the same mistakes as before: a clear Anglo-Saxon bias, a large concentration of publishers and an absence of a number of reputable publishers.

Abstract

The new bibliometric product announced by Thomson Reuters, Book citation index, is described. The authors discuss how this powerful company can carry out this big project (big science) and also improve its other products, taking advantage of the many studies undertaken by small bibliometric research teams (little science) in previous years. The new index promises to be successful because books are the main communication vehicle in the humanities.

Abstract

This paper analyzes the weaknesses of the Humanities and Social Sciences journal publishing sector in Spain. A high percentage of these journals are published by universities and often as a result of the effort of a small team (e.g., professional association, department, research group). They often have very low numbers of papers published per year, limited impact, and inefficient management, and may find it difficult to overcome a certain image of inbreeding. Against this dominant model, the authors propose the merger, co-publishing or restructuring of current journals to improve their management and achieve greater national and international recognition.