Scholarlink

<p>This paper demonstrates the value of integrating two conventionally separate science mapping techniques – editorial board interlocking analysis and topic modeling. As argued here, this combination is fruitful when the studied scientific domain is situated outside of established journal systems, particularly in peripheral academic contexts. Under such circumstances, journals, simultaneously serving as gatherings of gatekeepers of science and places of scientific communication, are perfect objects for studying the social and cognitive structures of a given scientific field. Using Russian sociology (a discipline long divided between localist and globalist factions) as an illustrative case, this study combines data on 1,429 unique editors of 59 Russian sociological journals with 40,579 article abstracts (2010–2023) from the same journals. The results confirm the existing accounts of Russian sociology as divided among three professional groups and link these communities (of editors and journals) to distinct topical preferences of the journals’ authors. While cautioning against uncritical application of science mapping frameworks developed for Western “normal science”, the analysis offers a methodological blueprint for reconstructing national disciplinary histories and interrogating knowledge production in atypical (for mainstream science-of-science) contexts.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Editorial Interlocking in the Periphery: Mapping the Overlap of Social and Topical Boundaries in Russian Sociology

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月2日

查看全文
  • Arthur Pecherskikh

摘要

This paper demonstrates the value of integrating two conventionally separate science mapping techniques – editorial board interlocking analysis and topic modeling. As argued here, this combination is fruitful when the studied scientific domain is situated outside of established journal systems, particularly in peripheral academic contexts. Under such circumstances, journals, simultaneously serving as gatherings of gatekeepers of science and places of scientific communication, are perfect objects for studying the social and cognitive structures of a given scientific field. Using Russian sociology (a discipline long divided between localist and globalist factions) as an illustrative case, this study combines data on 1,429 unique editors of 59 Russian sociological journals with 40,579 article abstracts (2010–2023) from the same journals. The results confirm the existing accounts of Russian sociology as divided among three professional groups and link these communities (of editors and journals) to distinct topical preferences of the journals’ authors. While cautioning against uncritical application of science mapping frameworks developed for Western “normal science”, the analysis offers a methodological blueprint for reconstructing national disciplinary histories and interrogating knowledge production in atypical (for mainstream science-of-science) contexts.