Historical Bibliometrics Using Google Scholar: The Case of Roman Law, 1727–2016

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the historical and linguistic coverage of Google Scholar, using publications in the field of Roman law as an example.Design/methodology/approach: To create a dataset of Roman law publications, we retrieved a total of 21,300 records of publications, published between years 1500 and 2016, with title including words denoting "Roman law" in English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish. Findings: We were able to find publications dating back to 1727. The largest number of publications and authors date to the late 19th century, and this peak might be explained by the role of Roman law in French legal education at the time. Furthermore, we found exceptionally skewed concentration of publications to authors, as well as of citations to publications. We speculate that this could be explained by the long time-frame of the study, and the importance of classic works. Research limitation: Major limitations, and potential future work, relate to data quality, and cleaning, disambiguation of publications and authors, as well as comparing coverage with other data sources. Practical implications: We find Google Scholar to be a promising data source for historical bibliometrics. This approach may help bridge the gap between bibliometrics and the "digital humanities".Originality/value: Earlier studies have focused mainly on Google Scholar's coverage of publications and citations in general, or in specific fields. The historical coverage has, however, received less attention.

Taking Comfort in Points:The Appeal of the Norwegian Model in Sweden

Purpose: The "Norwegian model" has become widely used for assessment and resource allocation purposes. This paper investigates why this model has becomes so widespread and influential. Approach: A theoretical background is outlined in which the reduction of "uncertainty" is highlighted as a key feature of performance measurement systems. These theories are then drawn upon when revisiting previous studies of the Norwegian model, its use, and reactions to it, in Sweden.Findings: The empirical examples, which concern more formal use on the level of universities as well as responses from individual researchers, shows how particular parts—especially the "publication indicator"—are employed in Swedish academia. The discussion posits that the attractiveness of the Norwegian model largely can be explained by its ability to reduce complexity and uncertainty, even in fields where traditional bibliometric measurement is less applicable. Research limitations: The findings presented should be regarded as examples that can be used for discussion, but one should be careful to interpret these as representative for broader sentiments and trends.Implications: The sheer popularity of the Norwegian model, leading to its application in contexts for which it was not designed, can be seen as a major challenge for the future.Originality: This paper offers a novel perspective on the Norwegian model by focusing on its general "appeal", rather than on its design, use or(mis)-use.