THE ‘LANGUAGE PREFERENCE’ IN SOCIOLOGY : MEASURESOF 'LANGUAGE SELF-CITATION', 'RELATIVE OWN-LANGUAGE

PREFERENCE INDICATOR’ AND ‘MUTUAL USE OFLANGUAGES'

Moshe YitzhakiDepartment of Information and Library Studies

Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL

ABSTRACTAlthough between one-third to one-half of world socialsciences research literature is published in languagesother than English, studies show very scant use of it byAmerican and English scholars. Almost all studies,however, were conducted from the Anglo-Saxon perspective,limiting the scope of the study to English-publishedsources or English-speaking scientists and researchworkers. The present study aimed at assessing the scopeof the language preference in a social sciences field,not only among American and British scholars, but amongGerman and French ones as well, using the technique ofcitation analysis. Samples including mostly 50-60original research articles were drawn from the 1985-1994volumes of nine leading sociology journals published inthe US, UK, Germany and France and the referencesappended to each were scrutinized in order to determinethe frequency distribution of the languages cited in eachperiodical. Findings clearly showed a strong preferenceof writers to cite material in their own language.However, the extent of this bias differed from journal tojournal. The American and British writers rank first,with close to 99% of their references being in English.German scholars rank next, preferring German sources in75% of the cases, and French scholars quote Frenchsources in only 66% of their references.In order to calculate the new refined measure of'relative own-language preference' (ROLP) indicator, theproportions of ‘language self-citation’ were related to

1

the estimated proportions of these languages in theexisting body of sociology research. This measure revealsthat German sociologists have the strongest bias towardstheir mother-tongue, their ratio of references in Germanexceeding almost 12 to 28 times the expected figureaccording to the German language share in sociologyresearch. Next come French sociologists (8 to 14 times)while American and British ones display the lowest own-language bias, only slightly higher than expected.Further analysis of the foreign languages preference ofeach group, according to a 'mutual-use' matrix, shows arelative low use of German and French sources by British-American sociologists.

INTRODUCTIONMost writers agree on the overwhelming importance ofEnglish in the worldwide transfer of scientificinformation, comprising between 40 to 80 per cent of thetotal international communication in the sciences,depending on the discipline (Wood 1967; Holmstrom 1973;Engelbert 1976; Michel 1982; Inman 1983). Replacing theGerman language, English has become the ‘lingua franca’of the scientific world (Thorp a.o. 1989). However,increasing amounts of primary scientific material,especially in the applied and technical sciences, arepublished in many other languages, mainly Russian,German, French and Japanese (Wood 1967; Wellisch 1973;Michel 1982; Jagodzinski-Sigogneau 1982; Bradely 1993;Regaunt 1993). Studying scientific publications ingeology, Regaunt (1994) claims that other languagesrather than English dominate some important subfields inthis discipline. Actually, some argue that the bestscientific research of non-English speakers is publishedin English anyway (Inman 1983, Garfield 1980), but thisview is still highly disputed (Michel 1982; Chan 1976).However, almost all studies, including those in thesciences and the social sciences, were conducted from anAnglo-Saxon perspective, limiting their scope to English-

2

language sources or English-speaking scientists andresearch workers. The reason might be simply the naturalpreference of a researcher to study his own domain. Alsosince English has become the lingua franca of thescientific world today, the main question for researchbecame, what languages are used by English-speakingscholars. This assumption, however, is less true of thesocial sciences whose published research feature morenon-English languages than in the sciences. Moreover,very little research was devoted to the languagepreference among non-English-speaking scholars, ascompared to their English-speaking colleagues, and noattempt was made to apply additional measures, besidesthe simple measure of the percentages of each languageused.

LITERATURE REVIEWStudies conducted recently in science and technology byHanson (1962), Wood (1967), Hutchins and the SheffieldGroup (1971), Morgan (1977), Leck (1978), Ellen (1979),Sherwood (1979), Schmidt (1979) and Large (1983)indicate that English-speaking scientists and researchworkers use very little foreign language material (mainlyFrench and German), approximately 8 to 15 per cent of thematerial read or cited.In the social sciences the situation is more extreme.Although one-third to one-half of social science researchliterature is published in non-English languages (Inman1983; Wood 1967; Wellisch 1973) all recent studies revealscant use of it by American and British scholars. Studiesin various fields and years found this use to range fromzero to 12%, with an average of 4% and a median of 3%(Louttit 1955; Guttsman 1966; Earle and Vickery 1969;Wood and Bower 1969; Stewart 1970; Hutchins 1971; Finisonand Whittemore 1975; Ellen 1979; Fitzgibbons 1980).Studies done in humanities fields do not provide auniform picture, the rate of foreign language materialuse by English-writers varying from 0.8% to 67% (!).

3

Studying the languages cited by scholars in biblicalresearch in 1950 and 1980, Yitzhaki (22) suggested using,beyond the common measure of 'language self-citation',also the measures of 'relative own-language preference’(indicating some degree of so-called ‘linguisticisolation') and 'language mutual-use matrix', discussedlater (in: Methodology).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDYThe objective of the present study was to assess by meansof citation analysis the extent of the language self-citation (or language preference) in the field ofsociology, assuming that this phenomenon results, atleast partly, from a ‘language barrier’. Morespecifically, our study aimed: 1. to gather empirical data concerning the languagepreference among American, British, German and Frenchsociologists publishing in their own scholarly journals. 2. to determine the exact extent of this preference bymeans of various measures, some of them new and rarelyused before.

METHODOLOGYBetween 50 to 60 regular original research articles weredrawn from recent volumes of each of the following ninedifferent-nationality sociology periodicals: 1. The American Sociological Review (USA) : 1992-93. 2. Sociology (UK) : 1990-94. 3. The Sociological Review (UK) ; 1990-94. 4. British Journal of Sociology (UK) : 1990-95. 5. Theory, Culture and Society (UK) : 1985-93. 6. Koelner Zeitschrift fuer Soziologie (Germany) : 1990-94.. 7. Sozialwissenschaftliche Informationen (Germany) : 1989-92. 8. Revue francaise de Sociologie (France) : 1990-94. 9. L'Annee Sociologique (France) : 1989-94.The samples included only articles written originally inthe language of the country of the periodical'spublication (excluding translated papers) and by authors

4

affiliated with institutions in that country only. Thus,Swiss authors were omitted from the German and Frenchsamples, and Australian and Dutch ones from the Americanand British samples. Articles written by British authorsbut published in the American periodical or vice versa,were also excluded from the samples.General categories of articles excluded from the sampleswere : book reviews, articles on topics of explicit localinterest, articles 'in honor of...' where naturallyreferences are heavily biased towards the honored person,and articles with less than 10 references.The references appended to each article were extractedaccording to a simple sampling procedure, depending ontheir number. If more than 30 references were listed,every second or third one (if more than 60) was taken,sampled systematically with a random starting point.Author self-citations were ignored and repeatedreferences to the same bibliographical item in one singlearticle were counted only once. In all, the nine journalsyielded a total of more than 12000 references whoselanguage was recorded.The language of the cited item was determined as itappeared in the reference, that is, a translated item wasnot recorded according to its original language, and apaper in German, for example, published in a Frenchcollection of essays, was counted as German.

MEASURES USEDLanguage analysis of cited references usually aims toreveal the languages upon which the research in theinvestigated field depends, as well as the relative useof each. Providing that the sample of source articles isnot confined to a certain single language, but rathercomprises several sub-samples published in variouslanguages, it is possible to calculate the rate of'language self-citation' (or ‘language preference’) foreach language group.

5

The measure of 'language self-citation' can be simplydefined as the proportion of references written in thesame language as the citing source. 'Language self-citation' is analogous to 'journal self-citation' and'subject self-citation' (Earle and Vickery 1969; Nicholasand Ritchie 1978; Yitzhaki 1989) and its rate indicatesthe degree to which researchers in a field draw upon theliterature published in their own language. A low rate of'language self-citation' is assumed to indicate aconsiderable use of, and dependence on, the literature inother languages, while a high rate should indicate self-sufficiency, and independence of foreign languageresearch literature. Seemingly, the closer the rate is to100%, the less dependent this group of scholars is onforeign language material.However, this measure alone is inadequate and may createa distorted picture, since it does not indicate thequantity of foreign language material thus lost by thosescholars, or its importance. Understandably, in a fieldin which English comprises a vast majority of the totalworld research output, the loss of information byEnglish-writers with a high rate of 'language self-citation' is much smaller than in field in which mostresearch material is published in languages other thanEnglish.The 'importance' of research material in 'foreign'languages is very difficult to assess and is highlydisputed, as indicated above. The other problem, however,is easier to solve providing one has data regarding theestimated proportion of the total published research,shared by each language in a specific subject field. Theactual 'language self-citation' rate should be related toan expected rate, which is based on the assumption that,by and large, with no language barriers and materialavailability problems existing, scholars would citepublications in a certain language according to its sharein the total research output of that field.

6

This refined measure of the relative language-self-citation, which might be also called the 'relative own-language preference’ (ROLP) indicator, for a group ofresearchers in a certain field who publish in a certainlanguage, could be represented by the following ratio : their actual self-citation rate of that language expected self-citation rate of that languagewhen the expected rate is expressed by an estimatedproportion of this language in the total publishedresearch output cumulated hitherto in that field. A ratioequaling 1 means a 'balanced' state in which the authorsin that field cite publications in their own languageproportionately to its share in the existing body ofresearch literature. The higher the ratio above 1, thehigher the degree of 'self-language preference' anddisuse of a larger body of foreign language material. Thesmaller it is than 1, the greater the relative use offoreign language literature.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONTable 1 (Parts I and II) presents the frequencydistribution of the cited languages in articles publishedin each of the nine journals, as well as the appropriateratios of 'relative own-language preference'. Clearly,the highest ratio of 'language self-citation' is foundamong the American and British sociologists (around 99%), with only about 1% of their references in foreignlanguages. The two German journals display considerablydifferent figures : 85.5 % in the Sozial. Infor. vs. only63.3 % in the Koelner Zeit. f. Soz., which might be explained bya more local focus of the former. It seems that Frenchsociologists are least impeded by the ‘languagepreference factor’, since their articles display thehighest ratio of foreign-language use (32.5%-35.5%) withonly 64.5% to 67.5% of their references in French.

However, the situation and the conclusions are entirelydifferent once we apply the refined measure of 'relative

7

own-language preference’ (ROLP indicator) describedabove. Table 2 presents the estimates needed forcalculating these indicators.

8

T A B L E 1 ;P a r t I

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION (IN %) OF LANGUAGES OF CITEDREFERENCES IN FIVE ENGLISH-LANGUAGE SOCIOLOGY JOURNALS (1985-1994) AND THEIR DERIVED INDICATORS OF ‘RELATIVE OWN-LANGUAGE

PREFERENCE’ (ROLP)

Languageofcitedreferences

AmericanSociologicalReview

Sociology(UK)

TheSociologicalReview (UK)

British J. ofSociology(UK)

Theory,Culture andSociety (UK)

EnglishGermanFrenchOther

98 .6 0 0.1 1.1

98.8 0.4 0.8 0

99.3 0.7 0 0

99.5 0.5 0 0

89.6 4.9 5.4 0.1

Total 100.0 %

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Total no.ofreferenceschecked

2374 1468 1446 1278 1197

N (=Totalno.ofarticleschecked)

100 50

50

50

60

Ref. meanRef.median

47.4 44.2

51.8 45.5

35.2 28.8

32.3 31.5

33.0 31.3

Estimat.prop.of thatlang.

(a) 81.4%

(b) 68.7

(a) 81.4%

(b) 68.7

(a) 81.4%

(b) 68.7

(a) 81.4%

(b) 68.7

(a) 81.4%

(b) 68.7

9

insociologicalresearch

% % % % %

Indicatorof‘RelativeOwn-LanguagePreference’

(a) 98.6= 1.2 81.4(b) 98.6= 1.4 68.7

(a) 98.8= 1.2 81.4(b) 98.8= 1.4 68.7

(a) 99.3= 1.2 81.4(b) 99.3= 1.4 68.7

(a) 99.5= 1.2 81.4(b) 99.5= 1.4 68.7

(a) 89.6= 1.1 81.4(b) 89.6= 1.3 68.7

10

T A B L E1 ; P a r t II

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION (IN %) OF LANGUAGES OF CITEDREFERENCES IN FOUR GERMAN AND FRENCH SOCIOLOGY JOURNALS(1985-1994) AND THEIR DERIVED INDICATORS OF ‘RELATIVE OWN-

LANGUAGE PREFERENCE’

Languageofcitedreferences

Koelner Zeitschrift f.Soziologie

Sozialwissen.Information.

Revuefrancaise deSociologie

L’AnneeSociologique

EnglishGermanFrenchOther

35.2 63.3 1.3 0.2

11.0 85.5 3.6 0

35.5 0 64.5 0

29.6 1.7 67.5 1.2

Total 100.0%

100.0%

100.0 % 100.0%

Total no.ofreferenceschecked

1273

1064 1267 1315

N (Totalno.ofarticleschecked)

60

60

60

60

Ref. meanRef.median

43.1 39.0

19.8 18.2

28.2 26.1

35.1 29.3

Estimat.prop.of thatlang.

(a) 3.0 %

(b) 5.0 %

(a) 3.0%

(b) 5.0

(a) 4.8 %

(b) 8.1 %

(a) 4.8%

(b) 8.1

11

insociologicalresearch

% %

Indicatorof‘RelativeOwn-LanguagePreference’

(a) 63.3 =21.1 3.0(b) 63.3 =12.7 5.0

(a)85.5 =28.5 3.0(b) 85.5=17.1 5.0

(a) 64.5 =13.4 4.8(b) 64.5 =8.0 8.1

(a)67.5=14.1 4.8(b) 67.5= 8.3 8.1

12

T A B L E 2

ESTIMATED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF LANGUAGE OF SOCIOLOGY RESEARCH LITERATURE (1965-1995) ---------------------------------------------------------------- ESTIMATE (a)ESTIMATE (b) ---------------------------------------------------------------- LANGUAGE No. % No.% ---------------------------------------------------------------- ENGLISH 193,991 81.4 193,99168.7 GERMAN 7,085 3.014,170 5.0 FRENCH 11,510 4.823,020 8.1 OTHER 25,697 10.851,394 18.2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 238,283 100.0% 282,575100.0%

Estimate (a) : According to SOCIOFILE CD-ROM1/74 - 12/95.

Estimate (b) : Assuming that only 50% of thenon-English items

are included in thisdatabase.

SOCIOFILE 1/74-12/95 CD-ROM database (by SociologicalAbstracts, inc.) covers sociology and relateddisciplines, theoretical and applied. It containsinformation from approximately 1600 journals in 30different languages from about 55 countries, byincluding bibliographical citations and abstracts (from

13

Sociological Abstracts and from SOPODA - Social Planning/Policyand Development Abstracts) and enhanced dissertationcitations (from Dissertations Abstracts International, 1986- ).Journals published by various sociological organizationsand periodicals containing the term 'sociology' in theirtitles, are abstracted fully, irrespective of languageor country of publication, while other journals inrelated fields are scanned for relevant articles.Actually, the abovementioned CD-ROM file includes alsoover 11,000 items published in 1965-1973. Estimate (a)in Table 2 shows the frequency distribution of thelanguages of all items included in this file. However,since this file is likely to be biased towards itemspublished in English, an adjustment was made by doublingthe quantity of non-English items, assuming they areunderrepresented in the file. The corrected proportions,represented by estimate (b), might be a better estimateof the entire body of research literature existing inthe field. The 'relative own-language preference’ (ROLP)indicators presented in Table 1 were calculated bydividing the ratio of 'language self-citation' by theestimated ratio of that language in the existing body ofresearch literature of that field.These ROLP indicators reveal that the highest degree of'own-language preference' (i.e. the strongest biastowards their mother-tongue) is found among the Germans,whose ratio of references in the German language exceeds21 to 28 times (according to estimate a) the amountexpected according to the German language share in worldsociology research. Next come French sociologists whoseuse of their own language exceeds about 14 times theexpected ratio, while American and British ones displaya much better situation, with coefficients slightlyhigher than 1, indicating the lowest own-language bias,being only slightly higher than expected.Calculating the ROLP indicators according to estimate b,which gives higher proportions to other languages in theexisting body of research literature at the expense of

14

English, naturally shows slightly higher rates ofrelative language self-citation among the American andBritish sociologists (respectively 1.4 and 1.3 vs. 1.2and 1.1 according to estimate a). Understandably,estimate b improves the German and French indicators,which drop considerably (from 21-28.5 to 13-17 and from13-14 to 8 respectively), but it remains relatively muchhigher, compared to their Anglo-Saxon colleagues, stillindicating a strong ‘bias’ (or preference) towards one'smother-tongue, 8 to 17 times higher than expectedaccording to its share.

Mutual Use of LanguagesIt is actually possible to construct a coefficientmatrix, by calculating for each group of sociologists(i.e. each periodical) the proportion of their use of acertain language, in relation to its part in theexisting body of research literature. Evidently, only one journal (Theory, Culture and Society - UK)out of the five included in the British-American groupdisplays a more 'balanced' use of both German and Frenchsources. Its use of references in German and Frenchmostly exceeds (or equals) the expected proportion (i.e.their estimated share) by a factor of 1.6 and 1.1respectively (or slightly lower if estimate b is used).Next come the French whose use of English sources rangebetween 0.36 and 0.44 of the latter's estimated share inthe research literature of sociology, and it is slightlyhigher if estimate b is used. The two French journalsdiffer, however, concerning the use of German sources :none in RFS vs. factor of 0.57 in l’Annee Soc., probablydue to the fact that the latter is a yearbook reviewingalso international trends in sociology. Thecoefficients for the two German journals indicate low tofairly balanced use of French sources (0.3-0.75 of theexpected values), but a relatively lower use of sourcesin English, only a small fraction (0.13 or 0.43) of theexpected according to the English estimated share. This

15

finding corroborates the one mentioned above (in Table1) which showed the German journals to have the highestROLP indicator. The mutual-use coefficients for theBritish-American group (except for TCS) puts it in the'worst' position relative to the German and Frenchjournals, since their references indicate only afractional use of German sources (0.23 or less) andeven lower use (0.17 or less) of French ones. Thisfinding corroborates former ones by Louttit (1955) andFinison (1975) concerning the field of psychology.

Possible Explanations1. To be sure, the ‘self-citation’ phenomenon is notlimited, as is well known, to the language dimension,but rather exists in some other parameters like authors,journals, countries. institutions, etc. There seem tobe more than one reason accounting for this phenomenon,a detailed discussion of which is beyond the scope ofthe present paper. 2. One may rightly assume, however,that the relatively greater availability andaccessibility of certain publications, compared toothers, is probably one of the reasons. Obviously, thisfactor enhances the use and citation of own-languagematerial, which is usually easier to obtain. Many, ifnot most, academic libraries in the US and UK do nothold the full array of French and German scholarlyjournals, not to mention monographs, and to some extenta similar situation exists in French and German academicinstitutions regarding scholarly journals and monographsin English. 3. One may rightly assume that the leading foreignjournals and the important monographs in each of thesethree languages are being held by academic libraries inthese countries, and most others may be obtained viainter-library loan. Thus, in view of the figures inTable 1 (Parts I and II) there is no doubt that the‘language barrier’ is at work here, besides the‘immediate availability’ factor. It is likely to assume

16

that a many scholars will prefer publications written intheir mother-tongue and will not go into excessiveefforts in order to get material in foreign language,especially if it has to be obtained from distantlibraries by a special procedure. 4. Scholars, apparently, tend to use and cite sourceswith which they became familiar by learning and reading,during their academic studies and later. Since localuniversities put relatively more emphasis on localpublications it increases the proportion of own-languagesources in the list of references appended to a paper. 5. Some of the topics discussed in sociology (andother) journals deal with local issues, for which mostof the sources are written in the local language.

CONCLUSIONS 1. To determine the ‘relative own-languagepreference’ (ROLP) existing among groups of scholars ina certain field one should relate the proportion of'language self-citation' of a group of scholarspublishing in a certain language, to some estimate ofthis language share in the existing body of researchliterature of this field. 2. Similarly, 'mutual-use' coefficients can beconstructed by relating this group's proportional use offoreign languages to each language share in the researchliterature. 3. When applied to sociology these measures show theGerman and French sociologists, publishing in thestudied periodicals, to have a higher ROLP, biasedtowards their own mother-tongue, compared to Americanand British ones. 4. The 'mutual-use' matrix gives one British journalthe highest 'grades' in using literature in German andFrench, followed by the French journals and the Germanones, while the American journal and the three other

17

British ones display only a fractional use of existingGerman and French publications.

* I am grateful to my student, Ms. Ida Isaac, for herpart in collecting and processing the data for four ofthe journals. I am also grateful to two anonymousreferees, whose comments helped me considerably inshaping the final version of this paper.

R E F E R E N C E S

Bradely D. (1993)European elites envy American cohesion. Science 260 :1738-1739.Chan, G.K.L. (1976)The foreign language barrier in science and technology.International Library Review 8 : 317-325.Earle, P. and Vickery, B. (1969) Social science research literature use in the UK asindicated by citations. Journal of Documentation 25 : 123-141.Ellen, S.R. (1979) Survey of foreign language problems facing the researchworker. Interlending Review 7(2): 31-41.Engelbert, H. (1976)The terminological barrier to the understanding ofscientific and technological literature. Translation News6(2) : 2-10.Finison, L.J. and C.L. Whittemore. (1975) Linguistic isolation of American social psychology.American Psychologist 30 : 513-516.Fitzgibbons, S.A. (1980)Citation analysis in the social sciences. in: Stuart,R.D. and Miller, G.B. eds., A Collection Development in Libraries; aTreatise. Greenwich, Conn. JAI,. Part B, 291-344.Garfield, E. (1980)

18

Do French scientists who publish outside of Franceand/or in English do better research? in: Garfield, E.Essays of an Information Scientist. vol. 3. Philadelphia, ISIPress , 498-503.Guttsman, W.L. (1966) The literature of the social sciences and provision forresearch in them. Journal of Documentation 22 : 186-194.Hanson, C.W. (1962)The Foreign Language Barrier in Science and Technology. London,Aslib.Holmstrom, J.E. (1973)The foreign language barrier, in: Sherrod, J. andHodina, A. eds., Reader in Science Information. Washington,D.C.,Microcard, , 94-103.Hutchins, W.J. a.o. (1971)The Language Barrier. University of Sheffield.Inman, C.R.H. (1983) Scientific Publications in English and developingcountries: a report of a survey of scientists'experiences. Journal of Information Science 6 : 159-164.Jagodzinski-Sigogneau, M. a.o. (1982) How to measure the degree of independence of a researchsystem? Scientometrics 4 : 119-133.Large, J.A. (1983)The Foreign-Language Barrier ; Problems in Scientific Communication.London, Andre Deutsch.Leck, C.F. (1978)Foreign languages and biologists today. Bioscience 28 :367.Louttit, C.M. (1955) The use of foreign languages by psychologists, AmericanJournal of Psychology 68 : 484-486.Michel, J. (1982) Linguistic and political barriers in the internationaltransfer of information in science and technology. Journalof Information Science 5 : 131-135.Morgan, B.A. (1977)

19

National bias in reference citation in English languageagricultural engineering journals. IAALD Quarterly Bulletin22(3-4) : 60-64.Nicholas, D. and Ritchie, M. (1978)Literature and Bibliometrics. London, Clive Bingley.Ralph, A. (1982)Language and information retrieval in the socialsciences. Aslib Proceedings 34 : 394-405.Regaunt, S. (1993)What lingua franca? Nature 361 : 107.Regaunt, S. (1994)English as lingua franca in geological scientificresearch ; a bibliometric study. Scientometrics 29 : 335-351.Schmidt, J.M. (1979)Translation of periodical literature in plant pathology.Special Libraries 70 : 12-17.Sherwood, B.A. (1979)Universal language requirement. Physics Today 32 : 9.Stewart, J. (1970) The literature of politics: a citation analysis.International Library Review 2 : 329-353.Thorp, R.G. a.o. (1989)The foreign language barrier : a study among pharmaceutical research workers. Journal of Information Science 14 :17-24.Wellisch, H. (1973)Linguistic and semantic problems in the use of English-language information services in non-English-speakingcountries. International Library Review 5 : 147-162.Wood, D.N. (1967) The foreign-language problem facing scientists andtechnologists in the U.K.-report of a recent survey.Journal of Documentation 23(2) : 117-130.Wood, D.N. and Bower, C.A. (1969) The use of social science periodical literature. Journal ofDocumentation 25 : 108-122.Yitzhaki, M. (1988)

20

The language barrier in the humanities:the case ofbiblical studies. INFORMETRICS 87/88; Select Proc. of the FirstInternational Conf. on Bibliometrics, Diepenbeek, Belgium, Aug. 1987.Amsterdam. Elsevier, 301-314.Yitzhaki, M. (1989) Subject dispersion and discipline affiliation. ScriptaHierosolymitana (Publications of the Hebrew University ofJerusalem) 29 : 217-249.

21