Changes in Psychology Publication Patterns in the Nordic Universities: A Bibliometric Analysis based on Current Research information Systems data
Keywords:
bibliometrics, research information systems (CRIS), publication patterns, psychology departments, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, NorwayAbstract
There is little empirical research focusing on the publication patterns of psychology. Using research information system (CRIS) data, the current analysis will give a more comprehensive view of the publication types, languages, co-authorship patterns, and publishers preferred by Nordic psychology researchers beyond Web of Science and Scopus. This study shows that the total number of publications as well as the number of authors per publication has increased during 2014-2023. The research also expands previous research by showing that besides scholarly papers, academic psychologists continue to write book publications and national language publications. These are largely missing from commercial databases. Yet, large international publishers remain dominant, although the role of OA publishers such as Frontiers and MDPI has strengthened.References
Auranen, O., & Pölönen, J. (2023). Comparing Finnish universities’ publication profiles using multidimensional field-normalized indicators. 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023). 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023). https://doi.org/10.55835/64416fdfb12efcf39479c136
Aksnes, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2019). A Criteria-based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of Data and Information Science, 4(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2019-0001
CoARA. (2022). CoARA – Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. Access date 25.05.2025 available at https://coara.eu/
Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind: How Psychology Found Its Language. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/tampere/detail.action?docID=1023989
de Castro, P., & Puuska, H.-M. (2023). Research Information Management Systems: Covering the whole research lifecycle. Proceedings of European University Information Systems Congress 2023, 95, 257–265.
Denissen, J. J. A., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2024). A comprehensive scan of psychological disciplines through self-identification on Google Scholar: Relative endorsement, topical coverage, and publication patterns. PLOS ONE, 19(1), e0296421. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296421
Engels, T. C. E., & Kulczycki, E. (2022). Handbook on research assessment in the social sciences. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Federation Of Finnish Learned Societies, The Committee for Public Information; Publishing, The Finnish Association for Scholarly; Universities Norway; European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (2019). Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication. Figshare. Journal contribution. https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.7887059
Haddow, G., & Hammarfelt, B. (2019). Quality, impact, and quantification: Indicators and metrics use by social scientists. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24097
Hammarfelt, B. (2018). Taking Comfort in Points: The Appeal of the Norwegian Model in Sweden. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0023
Hanson, M. A., Barreiro, P. G., Crosetto, P., & Brockington, D. (2024). The strain on scientific publishing. Quantitative Science Studies, 5(4), 823–843. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327
Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics, 107(2), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x
Hicks, D. (2005). The Four Literatures of Social Science. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (pp. 473–496). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_22
Joy, S. (2006). What Should I Be Doing, and Where Are They Doing It? Scholarly Productivity of Academic Psychologists. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00020.x
Krampen, G. (2016). Scientometric trend analyses of publications on the history of psychology: Is psychology becoming an unhistorical science? Scientometrics, 106(3), 1217–1238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1834-4
Krampen, G., Fell, C., & Schui, G. (2011). Psychologists’ research activities and professional information-seeking behaviour: Empirical analyses with reference to the theory of the Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Journal of Information Science, 37(4), 439–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551511412148
Krampen, G., Huckert, T., & Schui, G. (2012). The impact of anglicizing former German-language psychology journals on authorship and citation frequencies. European Psychologist, 17(3), 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000074
Kulczycki, E., C.E. Engels, T., & Pölönen, J. (2022). Multilingualism of social sciences. In T. C. E. Engels & E. Kulczycki (Eds.), Handbook on Research Assessment in the Social Sciences. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800372559.00031
Kulczycki, E., Guns, R., Pölönen, J., Engels, T. C. E., Rozkosz, E. A., Zuccala, A. A., Bruun, K., Eskola, O., Starčič, A. I., Petr, M., & Sivertsen, G. (2020). Multilingual publishing in the social sciences and humanities: A seven‐country European study. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(11), 1371–1385. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24336
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
Martinčević, M., Maslić Seršić, D., & Jokić, D. (2023). Contribution of CEE authors to psychological science: Is the growing trend of publishing in non-CEE journals still present 10 years after its inception? Scientometrics, 128(6), 3703–3721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04695-5
Norwood, A. E. Q., Hatvany, T. C., Barber, K. E., Lyons, J. T., & Griffith, J. D. (2024). Scholarly accomplishments: A United States survey of academic psychologists. Current Psychology, 43(22), 19732–19746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05773-4
Ossenblok, T. L. B., Engels, T. C. E., & Sivertsen, G. (2012). The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science—A comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005-9). Research Evaluation, 21(4), 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs019
Ossenblok, T. L. B., Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2014). Coauthorship of journal articles and book chapters in the social sciences and humanities (2000-2010): Coauthorship of Journal Articles and Book Chapters in the Social Sciences and Humanities (2000-2010). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 882–897. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23015
Oviedo-García, M. Á. (2021). Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). Research Evaluation, 30(3), 405–419a. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab020
Piro, F. N., Aksnes, D. W., & Rørstad, K. (2013). A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields: Challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22746
Pölönen, J., & Kulczycki, E. (2025). Multilingualism is important for all fields of science. In J. Soler & K. Kaufhold, Language and the Knowledge Economy (pp. 151–175). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003413066-11
Puuska, H.-M. (2010). Effects of scholar’s gender and professional position on publishing productivity in different publication types. Analysis of a Finnish university. Scientometrics, 82(2), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0037-7
Puuska, H.-M. (2014a). Scholarly Publishing Patterns in Finland [Dissertation, University of Tampere]. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-44-9480-2
Puuska, H.-M. (2014b). Scholarly publishing patterns in Finland: A comparison of disciplinary groups [Dissertation]. University of Tampere.
Sīle, L., Pölönen, J., Sivertsen, G., Guns, R., Engels, T. C. E., Arefiev, P., Dušková, M., Faurbæk, L., Holl, A., Kulczycki, E., Macan, B., Nelhans, G., Petr, M., Pisk, M., Soós, S., Stojanovski, J., Stone, A., Šušol, J., & Teitelbaum, R. (2018). Comprehensiveness of national bibliographic databases for social sciences and humanities: Findings from a European survey. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy016
Sivertsen, G. (2016a). Patterns of internationalization and criteria for research assessment in the social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics, 107(2), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1845-1
Sivertsen, G. (2016b). Publication-Based Funding: The Norwegian Model. In M. Ochsner, S. E. Hug, & H.-D. Daniel (Eds.), Research Assessment in the Humanities (pp. 79–90). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_7
Sivertsen, G. (2022). Publishing in the social sciences and its representation in research evaluation and funding systems. In Handbook on research assessment in the Social Sciences (pp. 238–261).
Smedslund, G., Arnulf, J. K., & Smedslund, J. (2022). Is psychological science progressing? Explained variance in PsycINFO articles during the period 1956 to 2022. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1089089. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1089089
Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
