Consecuencias imprevistas de la dominación anglófona en las ciencias sociales y jurídicas

Referencias bibliográficas

• Aalbers, M. B. (2004). Creative destruction through the Anglo-American hegemony: A non-Anglo American view on publications, referees and language. Area, 36 (3), 319-322.
• Alatas, S. F. (2003). Academic dependency and the global division of labour in the social sciences. Current Sociology, 51 (6), 599-613.
• Albarillo, F. (2014). Language in social science databases: English versus non-English articles in JSTOR and Scopus. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 33 (2), 77-90.
• Aleixandre-Benavent, R., Valderrama-Zurián, J. C. y González-Alcaide, G. (2007). El factor de impacto de las revistas científicas: limitaciones e indicadores alternativos. El profesional de la información, 16 (1), 4-11.
• Amin, M., Mabe, M. (2000). Impact factors: use and abuse. Perspectives in publishing, 1, 1-6.
• Ammon, U. (2001). Editor’s preface. En U. Ammon (ed.), The dominance of English as a language of science (pp. v-x). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Ammon, U. (2008). How could international scientific communication be made fairer and more efficient? Disponible en http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/26274/title/ How-Could-International-Scientific-Communication-Be-Made-Fairer-and-More-Efficient-/
• Ammon, U. (2010). The hegemony of English. En UNESCO, World Social Science Report. Knowledge Divides (pp. 154-155). Paris: UNESCO.
• Andersen, H. (2000). Influence and reputation in the social sciences - How much do researchers agree? Journal of Documentation, 56 (6), 674-692.
• Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagne, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V. and Gingras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68 (3), 329-342.
• Bajerski, A. (2011). The role of French, German and Spanish journals in scientific communication in international geography. Area, 43 (3), 305-313.
• Bordons, M., Gómez, I. (2004). Towards a single language in science? A Spanish view. Serials, 17 (2), 189-195.
• Burgess, S. (2014). Centre-periphery relations in the Spanish context: temporal and crossdisciplinary variation. En K. Bennett (ed.), The semiperiphery of academic writing. Discourses, communities and practices (pp. 93-104). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Burgess, S., Gea-Valor, M. L., Moreno, A. I., ReyRocha, J. (2014). Affordances and constraints on research publication: A comparative study of the language choices of Spanish historians and psychologists. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 72-83.
• Canagarajah, S. (1996). “Nondiscursive” requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication, 13, 435-472.
• Carrington, K., Hogg, R., Sozzo, M. (2016). Southern criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 56, 1-20.
• Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory. The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Cambridge: Polity.
• Connell, R. (2009). Peripheral visions: Beyond the metropole. En J. Kenway, J. Fahey (Eds.), Globalizing the Research Imagination (pp. 53-72). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Engels, T. C. E., Ossenblok, T. L. B., Spruyt, E. H. J. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000-2009. Scientometrics, 93 (2), 373-390.
• Ferguson, G. (2007). The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: Questions of equity, access and domain loss. Ibérica, 13, 7-38.
• Fernández Esquinas, M. (2016). Las revistas de ciencias sociales en los sistemas de I+D. Notas sobre política editorial para revistas de sociología. Revista Española de Sociología, 25 (3), 427-442.
• Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language: What can Goffman’s “Stigma” tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 77-86.
• Forbes, I., Abrams, D. (2004). International social science research: craft industry or baby behemoth? International Social Science Journal, 56 (180), 227-244.
• Frame, J. D., Carpenter, M. P. (1979). International Research Collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 9, 481-497.
• Gantman, E. R., Fernández Rodríguez, C. J. (2016). Literature segmentation in management and organization studies: The case of Spanishspeaking countries (2000-10). Research Evaluation, 25 (4), 461-471.
• Garfield, E. (1967). English - An international language for science? The Information Scientist, 1967, 19-20.
• Garfield, E., Welljams-Dorof, A. (1990). Language use in international research: A citation analysis. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 511 (1), 10-24.
• Gea-Valor, M. L., Rey-Rocha, J., Moreno, A. I. (2014). Publishing research in the international context: An analysis of Spanish scholars’ academic writing needs in the social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 36, 47-59.
• Glänzel, W. (1996). A bibliometric approach to social sciences. National Research Performance in 6 Selected Social Science Areas 1990-1992. Scientometrics, 35, 291-307.
• Hanafi, S. (2011). University systems in the Arab East: Publish globally and perish locally vs publish locally and perish globally. Current Sociology, 59 (3), 291-309.
• Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44 (2), 193-215.
• Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social sciences. En H. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (eds.), The handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 473-496). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Huang, M., Chang, Y. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (11), 1819-1828.
• Hyland, K. (2009) Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Hyland, K. (2016) Academic Publishing: Issues and Challenges in the Construction of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kachru, B. (1986). The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions and Models of Non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon.
• King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13, 261-276.
• Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: selected studies in scientific tradition and change. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
• Large, J. A. (1983). The Foreign-Language Barrier: Problems in Scientific Communication. London: André Deutch.
• Larivière, V., Archambault, É., Gingras, Y., Vignola-Gagné, É. (2006). The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (8), 997-1004.
• Larivière, V., Haustein, S., Mongeon, P. (2015). The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0127502.
• Lillis, T., Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. London: Routledge.
• López-Navarro, I., Moreno, A. I., Quintanilla, M. A., Rey-Rocha, J. (2015). Why do I publish research articles in English instead of my own language? Differences in Spanish researchers’ motivations across scientific domains. Scientometrics, 103, 939-976.
• López Navarro, I., Moreno Fernández, A. I., Rey Rocha, U. (2017) Dificultades de los investigadores españoles para publicar en revistas internacionales: métricas, editores y multilingüismo. Teknocultura, 14 (1), 13-33.
• Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, T. (2016). Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A Comparison of Spanish and UK research. Scientometrics, 109 (3), 2007-2030.
• Mela, G. S., Cimmino, M. A., Ugolini, D. (1999). Impact assessment of oncology research in the European Union. European Journal of Cancer, 35 (8), 1182-1886.
• Merton, R. K. (1936). The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action. American Sociological Review, 1 (6), 894-904.
• Merton, R. K. (1976). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Moed, H. F., Nederhof, A. J., Luwel, M. (2002). Towards Research Performance in the Humanities. Library Trends, 50 (3), 498-520.
• Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106 (1), 213-228.
• Montgomery, S. L. (2013). Does science need a global language? English and the future of research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Narvaez-Berthelemot, N., Russell, J. M. (2001). World Distribution of Social Science Journals: A View from the Periphery. Scientometrics, 51 (1), 223-239.
• Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66 (1), 81-100.
• Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín-Martín, A., Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). About the size of Google Scholar: playing the numbers. Granada: EC3 Working Papers 18: 23. Disponible en http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.6239.
• Paasi, A. (2005). Globalisation, academic capitalism and the uneven geographies of international journal publishing spaces. Environment and Planning, 37, 769-789.
• Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London/New York: Routledge.
• Pérez-Llantada C., Plo, R., Ferguson, G. R. (2011). “You don’t say what you know, only what you can”: the perceptions and practices of senior Spanish academics regarding research dissemination in English. English for Specific Purposes, 30 (1), 18-30.
• Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pierce, S. J. (1987). Characteristics of professional knowledge structures: Some theoretical implications of citation studies. Library and Information Science Research, 9 (3), 143-171.
• Quijano, A. (2000). Colonialidad del poder, eurocentrismo y América Latina. En E. Lander (comp.). La colonialidad del saber: eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales. Perspectivas latinoamericanas. CLACSO: Buenos Aires.
• Requena y Díez de Revenga, M. (2014). La evaluación de la investigación a debate. Revista Española de Sociología, 21, 129-136.
• Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 121-132.
• Salager-Meyer, F. (2014). Writing and publishing in peripheral scholarly journals: How to enhance the global influence of multilingual scholars? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13, 78-82.
• Sanz Menéndez, L. (2014). La evaluación de la ciencia y la investigación. Revista Española de Sociología, 21, 137-148.
• Schoepflin, U. (1992). Problems of representativity in the Social Sciences Citation Index. En P. Weingart, R. Sehringer, M. Winterhager (eds.). Representations of Science and Technology: Proceedings of the International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Bielefeld, 10-12 June 1990 (pp. 177-188). Leiden: DSWOPress.
• Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 133-158.
• Short, J. R., Boniche, A., Kim, Y., Li, P. L. (2001). Cultural globalization, global English, and geography journals. Professional Geographer, 53, 1-11.
• Tardy, C. (2004). The role of English in scientific communication: Lingua franca or Tyrannosaurus rex? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 247-269.
• Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 250-263.
• Van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the science citation index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51 (1), 335-346.
• Weingart, P., Schwechheimer, H. (2007) Conceptualizing and measuring excellence in the social sciences and humanities. En UNESCO. World Social Science Report: Knowledge Divides (pp. 1-37). París: UNESCO.
• Webster, B. M. (1998). Polish sociology citation index as an example of usage of national citation indexes in scientometric analysis of social science. Journal of Information Science, 24, 19-32.
• Wood, A. (2001). International scientific English: The language of research scientist around the world. En M. Peacock, J. Flowerdew (eds.). Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 71-83). Cambridge: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.
• Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., Bassecoulard, E. (2003). Correcting glasses help fair comparisons in international science landscape: Country indicators as a function of ISI database delineation. Scientometrics, 56 (2), 259-282.