Bibliometrics evidences of scientific recognition in reviews and interviews theoretical notes and analysis model

ABSTRACT

Introduction:

Reviews and interviews published in scientific journals have received little attention in research in the field of Information Science. The study defends the idea that the analysis of these textual genres can demonstrate scientific recognition when they are taken as objects of study from a bibliometric perspective and analyzed based on the theoretical framework of Information Science, Sociology of Science and Linguistics.

Objectives:

Conduct a theoretical essay on these textual genres and develop and apply an analysis model to a sample of reviews and interviews published in Revista Estudos Feministas (REF) between 2018 and 2020.

Method:

Exploratory and descriptive research that uses quantitative and qualitative approaches from bibliometric and content analysis.

Results:

The theoretical essay highlighted the characteristics of reviews and interviews, and the analysis model developed contains indicators that signal scientific recognition: the profiles of reviews and reviewed works (n = 69), reviews (n = 81) and reviewed (n = 95); the interviews and the interviewees (n = 9), the interviewers (n = 13), as well as the academic values and attributes that are usually valued in the elaboration of these textual genres.

Conclusion:

The analysis of reviews and interviews published in REF based on an analysis model elaborated from an interdisciplinary perspective between Information Science, Sociology of Science and Linguistics offered an analytical toolbox relevant to the study of scientific recognition.

KEYWORDS:
Book reviews; Interviews; Scientifc recognition; Bibliometrics

RESUMO

Introdução:

Resenhas e entrevistas publicadas em periódicos científicos têm recebido pouca atenção em pesquisas do campo da Ciência da Informação. O estudo defende a ideia de que a análise desses gêneros textuais pode evidenciar o reconhecimento científico quando são tomados como objetos de estudo a partir de uma perspectiva bibliométrica e analisados com base no referencial teórico da Ciência da Informação, Sociologia da Ciência e Linguística.

Objetivos:

Realizar um ensaio teórico sobre esses gêneros textuais e elaborar e aplicar um modelo de análise em uma amostra de resenhas e entrevistas publicadas na Revista Estudos Feministas (REF) entre 2018 e 2020.

Método:

Pesquisa exploratória e descritiva que utiliza abordagens quantitativas e qualitativas advindas das análises bibliométrica e de conteúdo.

Resultados:

O ensaio teórico destacou as características das resenhas e entrevistas, e o modelo de análise elaborado contém indicadores que sinalizam o reconhecimento científico: os perfis das resenhas e das obras resenhadas (n=69), dos resenhistas (n=81) e resenhados (n=95); das entrevistas e dos entrevistados (n=9), dos entrevistadores (n=13), bem como os valores acadêmicos e atributos que costumam ser valorizados na elaboração desses gêneros textuais.

Conclusão:

A análise das resenhas e entrevistas publicadas na REF baseada em modelo de análise elaborado a partir de uma perspectiva interdisciplinar entre Ciência da Informação, Sociologia da Ciência e Linguística ofereceu uma caixa de ferramentas analítica relevante para o estudo do reconhecimento científico.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE:
Resenhas; Entrevistas; Reconhecimento científico; Bibliometria

1 INTRODUCTION

In the field of metric information studies, the role of articles published in scientific journals is almost absolute, especially those based on citation analysis. Driven mainly by the demand for inputs to finance research, such studies use several citation indexes - impact factor, h-index, for example - to evaluate scientific journals and academic-scientific activities developed by researchers or research groups, institutions, departments, knowledge areas, etc. These studies proliferate in the main journals in the area, while objects of study such as books, book chapters and other monographic works, such as theses and dissertations, occupy a secondary role in studies evaluating scientific production.

Furthermore, among the various sections of scientific journals, the one with “articles” is the one with the largest volume of contributions, as well as the main databases of national and international scientific publications, in which the scientific article is the main target of bibliometric analysis. This scenario of supremacy of the scientific article as the main object of study in the scope of Bibliometrics and Scientometry is nothing more than the reflection of the historical importance that this documentary type has assumed in the process of production and communication of science, and of evaluation of scientific activities, both nationally and internationally.

One more ingredient in this discussion concerns the central and predominant place occupied by the book in the human and social sciences. Although there are other means of disseminating academic work, the book is still considered the “gold standard” of the scientific communication process in this area, as reported by Williams et al. (2009, p.76). According to these authors, monographs published in the humanities are the “main course of a meal, while articles in journals and other academic communications are like appetizers”. In fact, the importance of the book in the context of the humanities had already been pointed out by Hicks (2005, p.484) when he warned that “bibliometrists who ignore books run the risk of distorting the image of the social sciences”.

From a “citationist” perspective, Zucalla (2013) claims that although the bibliometric community recognizes the distinction between the humanities and the other sciences, article citations reign supreme in assessment procedures. As Giménez-Toledo, Mañara-Rodriguez, Tejada-Artigas (2015) clarify, not dealing with books means leaving aside the results of investigations carried out in these disciplines a fundamental channel of communication.

However, some still timid signs of change in this scenario have been given by the main providers of citation indexes with the inclusion of other document types in their databases: book chapters, multiple types of reviews (of books, events, films, musicals, theater and dance performances), among others.

Regarding the Scopus database, in 2020 more than 120,000 book titles were indexed in the Book Titles Expansion (ELSEVIER, 2020). In 2011, with the creation of the Book Citation Index (BKCI), Thomson Reuters (currently, Clarivate Analytics) started to index more than 60,000 books on humanities, social sciences, arts and sciences, with 10,000 new books being added annually, generating more than 15 million new citations on the Web of Science (CLARIVATE, 2020). The selection of works that make up the BKCI is based on factors such as publisher, date of publication and evidence of high citation impact (TESTA, 2012). Although BKCI has tools that allow the development of bibliometric indicators, this index still has a long way to go due to its coverage, absence of data on institutional affiliation and authors' countries, and the fact that the language of the works is practically limited to English (GORRAIZ; PURNELL; GLÄNZEL, 2013; TORRES-SALINAS et al., 2014, CHI et al., 2015). Thus, there is still resistance on the part of bibliometrists to use such tools for evaluation purposes, as Zuccala (2013) maintains.

Thus, if the articles can be seen as the backbone of scientific journals, therefore attracting the views of bibliometrists to the different types of research that may result from their study, why have the other sections of scientific journals - for example, reviews and interviews - have they received little attention from this research community?

It is in this context that this article is inserted, which searches for new themes and objects of study within the scope of metric studies, as a way to contribute to the expansion of knowledge in this scientific field, and directs the focus of its attention to reviews and interviews published in scientific journals. Thus, the research was guided by the following question: how are the theoretical elements of the scientific literature configured on reviews and interviews that can support a proposal for a model of analysis of bibliometric evidence of scientific recognition? Thus, the study defends the idea that these textual genres can reveal scientific recognition when they are taken as objects of study from the bibliometric perspective and analyzed based on the theoretical framework of Information Science, Sociology of Science and Linguistics, because they signal the value and contribution of the reviews and interviewees to the field of knowledge in which they are inserted. Scientific recognition, in the Mertonian view of science, is inserted in the reward system of science, as it provides “a simplified but basic model of the structure and dynamics of the scientific community”, as explained by Storer (1979, p. 281). Thus, since science is not private, but public, and only by publishing their work can scientists make their contribution, “recognition by qualified peers is the basic form of extrinsic reward” (MERTON, 1979, p.vi). It can be inferred from these assumptions that the reward is also granted not only when the work is published and cited- making it public and ensuring that the author claims it as their own - but also when these peers make a public assessment of that publication in a review, or when an author's academic trajectory and contributions are disclosed in an interview. Just as citations are a form of scientific recognition, when giving credit to whom the credit is due, reviews and interviews are also part of the science assessment system. The normative objective of the review is to alert readers to the value of a newly published text, as explained by Zuccala (2012), highlighting that the rhetorical function of the review serves as a measure of disciplinary influence as much as an adequate quote.

The research aimed to carry out a theoretical essay on reviews and interviews, to elaborate a model of analysis of these textual genres based on the categorization of its main elements, and to apply this model in a sample of reviews and interviews published in a scientific journal in the field of feminist and gender studies. This study is justified by the possibility of offering a theoretical and methodological framework for future research aimed at understanding how reviews and interviews can reveal scientific recognition, which gives originality to the proposal.

The next sections present a set of theoretical notes on reviews and interviews, the methodological path, the analysis model and the results obtained from the application of this model.

2 THEORETICAL NOTES ON REVIEWS AND INTERVIEWS

2.1 Reviews

A review is a vernacular form of academic conversation that helps us tell what is happening in our world, how well we are working and how we can reshape our work.

( STOWE, 1991 , p.592)

The epigraph that opens this topic places the reviews in the context of the production of scientific knowledge. Lindholm-Romantschuk (1998, p.vii) points out that book reviews are "significant indicators of academic communication and can be used to track the flow of information within and between domains of knowledge". In the view of Salager-Meyer, Alcaraz Ariza and Pabón Berbesí (2007), the reviews offer a rhetorical platform in which researchers can express their points of view, signal their loyalty to a specific group and participate in the ongoing conversation of their disciplines, arguing how, why and to what extent books frequently published in their respective fields contribute to the construction of knowledge.

Linguist and academic communication expert Ken Hyland (2009) considers that the review plays an important role in both disciplinary communication and public assessment of research, although it is often neglected as a research genre. In his view, the reviews are highly visible and provide researchers with a platform to proclaim a public position without detailed arguments, empirical data or an extended review process. Hyland (2009, p. 89) also found that in the field of Philosophy, a review can be an important contribution to research in the field and

“will be cited because that review may be the first time that a person has articulated an argument that other people have considered persuasive".

In Hartley's (2005) opinion, the main characteristics that academics look for in a review include the presence of a name as the author of the review, the presentation of an objective view of the work, a critique of the main arguments of the work, an attempt to position the book in its historical context, as well as an assessment of its academic credibility.

On these characteristics of the review and the reviewer, Zuccala and van Leeuwen (2011) resorted to the guidelines for the review of the University of Alberta and explained that the role of the reviewer involves: criticizing the author's writing style, evaluating the author's intention behind the book, determine whether the author has presented his ideas logically and consistently, confirm the author's ability to contextualize work in his field of study, and examine critical silences or omissions that may weaken the content of the reviewed book.

However, in several fields of knowledge, a good review should not only offer a critical and insightful perspective, based on considerable knowledge of the field, but also “must respond to the complex demands of this delicate interaction situation, showing an awareness of the proper expression of praise and criticism” (HYLAND; DIANI, 2009, p.8). These authors also comment that a review signed by a recognized authority in the field has a greater weight than that signed by an unknown young scholar. This means that the most prestigious journals are selective in their choice of reviewers. However, Sanz (2009) notes that in reviews published in Spain, these tended to be left in the hands of junior researchers, due to the low rating attributed to this type of publication in the researchers' curricula and professional activities. Thus, as highlighted by East (2011), the role of the editor of reviews is very important, although the level of editorial involvement of reviews varies according to the profile of the magazines.

Furthermore, the fact that the same review is published in several relevant journals in the field has a significant impact. The publication of a review in a prestigious journal will have high visibility, but it will not reach the target audience as effectively as that published in a specialized magazine with limited circulation, as explained by East (2011). The author proposes the following indicators of the high quality of reviews: impartial analysis that places the book in the discipline's literature and cites other relevant works in the same field, well qualified author, adequate extension of the review, recent and easily accessible work.

Although reviews can be very influential, few studies have been conducted to assess their impact in academic fields, which motivated Hartley (2006) to conduct a survey with researchers in the field of Humanities and Natural Sciences in order to verify the frequency with which they read and wrote reviews, how useful they are considered and what resources researchers found important in book reviews. The results of this research showed that reviewers and readers of reviews have clear opinions on the content of reviews, for example, whether they should include quotes from other works.

Zuccala and Bod (2012) note that there is little reflection on the choice or agreement of a specific scholar to write a review, with the reviewer and the reviewed author being generally peers in the same discipline. In contrast, Lindholm-Romantschuk (1998) pointed out that a significant number of reviews published in disciplinary magazines are from books originating from other disciplines. In his view, reviews are important in the academic field because they give authority and importance to the author of the book and critical comments from his disciplinary peers, while giving visibility to the reviewers. In this context, it is worth remembering that the eminent sociologist Robert Merton, considered the founding father of the Sociology of Science, wrote more than two hundred reviews throughout his academic career, and 65 of them were prepared when he was still a young assistant researcher of George Sarton and Pitirim Sorokin at Harvard (SICA, 2011; FLECK, 2015).

It is worth remembering that in the scope of the Sociology of Science in Merton, the system of rewards in science privileges established authors, in such a way that more experienced scientists are more valued by the scientific community receiving more credits in relation to strangers, in such a way that the rewards are unevenly distributed in this stratified science system (MERTON, 1985). Scientific recognition was also the object of study by Bourdieu (2004), when proposing the concept of scientific field as a social space of competition and struggles between agents who occupy unequal positions and develop strategies to accumulate symbolic capital composed of scientific credits. In his words:

[...] scientific capital is a particular type of symbolic capital (which, it is known, is always founded on acts of knowledge and recognition) which consists of recognition (or credit) attributed by the set of competing peers within the scientific field ( the number of mentions in the Citation Index is a good indicator). (BOURDIEU, 2004, p.26)

In turn, Zuccala and Bod (2012) assert that in the science reward system the benefit received by the review author is practically null, although Hartley (2006) has shown that researchers from various fields of knowledge tend to agree that it would be positive to receive institutional recognition for published reviews.

When analyzing the rhetorical and evaluative function of reviews, Hyland and Diani (2009) observed that they reveal the functioning of a group of peers in their most normative role, publicly setting standards, estimating merit and indirectly evaluating the reviewees’reputation. In the view of these authors, like other academic texts, reviews are designed to persuade the reader of something.

Tse and Hyland (2006) understand that the review proclaims not only the status of a book, drawing attention to many unrecognized publications that appear every year, but also that of the reviewer, who adopts a position of authority in relation to the reviewed work and introduces himself as a qualified specialist to speak to and for the discipline. In the view of these authors, evaluations can therefore be potentially worrying for both the reviewed and the reviewers, and therefore they need to be managed through careful frameworks that respond to interpersonal effects, while addressing the demands of the genre.

Reviews also fall into the domain of scientific communication, as they involve producers and academic users, and are disseminated through formal channels (SPINK; ROBINS; SCHAMBER, 1998; ZUCCALA; van LEEUWEN, 2011). In addition, reviews are part of the peer review process, as they are designed as evaluations of academic work.

Lindholm-Romantschuk (1998) points out that an important difference between academic review and other types of peer review, since it is a post-publication review process.

Zuccala and Bod (2012) also reinforce this understanding, by pointing out that books receive criticism after being published, but the criticism received by articles from scientific journals usually occurs before publication, during the peer review process. This aspect had already been pointed out by Sabosik (1988) when affirming that the academic review is subdivided in two areas: the previous review, that is, the arbitration performed by the peers in the evaluation process of journal articles, and the book review, referring to the evaluation of post-publication books.

An interesting aspect regarding the reviews was highlighted by Zuccala and van Leeuwen (2011). In the view of these authors, research related to reviews focused less on its use in academic evaluations than on its content and applicability for book selection processes and development of library collections. In addition, reviews may focus only on the reviewed book or include references other than the reviewed work, which gives the type of literary essay to this type of review.

Diodato's (1984) study showed that book reviews exposed in reviews are rarely cited. Nicolaisen (2002a) investigated this aspect and found that books that receive positive or favorable reviews tend to be cited more frequently than those that receive negative comments from a reviewer. In this regard, Lindholm-Romantschuk (1998) points out that a negative review could prevent the ideas of a book from reaching a wider audience, however a positive review could facilitate the diffusion of these ideas in the academic community. In another study, Nicolaisen (2002b) also noted an increase in the number of book reviews that make additional references to other works. For the author, the review that contains many references is considered reliable or more “academic”, since it points out that the reviewed work was related to previous works in the field.

When questioning why reviews are written, Obeng-Odoom (2014) contested the idea that these are routinely rejected by editors because they are considered easy to write and publish, that is, because they are commonly seen as mere summaries and uncritical statements of praise, as well as marketing tricks. In his view, these are misleading impressions of reviews, as they have other merits when considering the perspectives of the reviewer, the reviewed author, and the wider academic community. For the author, writing reviews is a great way to become known as an expert or researcher in the field in which you are inserted. A persuasive and comprehensive review evokes a feeling of respect for the reviewer, if he is not yet known, in such a way that the benefits of being accepted as a specialist are numerous, as they confer visibility, impact and attention, among other aspects.

The status, role and characteristics of the review as a form of academic publication in the humanities field were analyzed by East (2011). The suggestive subtitle of the research, in the form of a question - an academic Cinderella? - alludes to the heroine of Perrault's fairy tale to question the unrecognized value of reviews, which should be given greater attention. For the author, despite the importance that the academic community of humanities attaches to reviews, the frequency of book citations does not reflect the important role played by critics and their significance as an academic result. In his view, this is because in some circles, especially outside the humanities, the term “review” evokes the image of a column in the weekend newspaper, or a publication on the website of some bookstore, although the review is much more than that. This time, the author defends the need to reevaluate book reviews and increase his academic status, and also makes it clear that if in academic writing the citation of revealing previous publications is an indicator of in-depth research, and thus, if one of The functions of the reviews are to place the book in the context of the existing literature on the subject, so the reviewer will need to cite other publications besides the reviewed work. This aspect was also noted by Diodato (1984) who found many citations in the reviews he analyzed.

As the reviews refer to published books, Zuccala and Bod (2012) highlight the elements that should be considered in bibliometric studies: the position of the book in its specific field of knowledge; the prestige of the book editor; a quote from the book in a journal article on and off the field; a quote from the book by another book; and a review of the book in a periodical that should be referred to as a mega-quote.

Some surveys were carried out to verify the following aspects of the reviews: to search for evidence about the dominant attitudes of the reviewers, the correlation between the reviewer's review and the citation rates of reviews in the Chemistry area (SCHUBERT et al., 1984); the importance of reviews and their use in different areas of knowledge (NANOWITZ; CARLO, 1997); the relevance of reviews and their usefulness for teaching and researching professors in the fields of Humanities, Social Sciences and Science and Technology (SPINK; ROBINS; SCHAMBER, 1998); the importance of books and reviews as a criterion for hiring and promoting university departments of literature and languages (CRONIN; LA BARRE, 2004); the role of reviews in the academic context for members of the British Journal of Educational Technology editorial board to determine how often they read and wrote reviews, how useful they were and what resources they found important in book reviews (HARTLEY, 2005); the value of reviews for reference librarians (DILEVKO et al., 2006); verify how scholars from different areas manage the potential academic conflict caused by a book review (MORENO; SUÁREZ, 2008); to analyze the usefulness of the reviews according to the reviewer's reputation and the depth of the review taking as object of study the reviews published on the Amazon website (CHUA; BANERJEE, 2015).

Reviews published in journals from various fields of knowledge were also investigated. In the area of Sociology, Champion and Morris (1973) analyzed the regionality of the reviewers and the types of criticism present in the reviews published in the American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review and Social Forces. In the field of Education, Hartley (2005) investigated the opinion on reviews with members of the editorial committee of the British Journal of Educational Technology, and Schepis, Purchase and Brennan (2015) analyzed the review section of the Journal of the Business-to-Business Marketing to verify that thematic trends and the broader publishing environment in which books focused on these reviews are incorporated into that area of knowledge.

Other more recent research on reviews were also conducted aiming, among other aspects: to point out its advantages for the area of Environmental Law (STALLWORTHY, 2013); evaluate its usefulness as a selection criterion for the Book Citation Index describing the relationship between books, reviews and citations (GORRAIZ; GUMPENBERGER; PURNELL, 2014); discuss the status of reviews in the academic communication system in the context of cultural history and humanities (STEPANOV, 2016); to obtain a better understanding of the communication patterns in different types of publications and the applicability of the Book Citation Index (BKCI) for the construction of indicators in informetric studies and research evaluation (GLÄNZEL; THJIS; CHI, 2016); evaluate the patterns and dynamics of reviews on the Web of Science’s Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index (LIU; DING; GU, 2017); investigate the rise and fall of reviews published in the field of Psychology (HARTLEY; HO, 2017).

The issue of gender in academic reviews has also been discussed in several studies. For example, Moore (1978) assessed gender bias in reviews written by men and women, concluding that both are biased in favor of themselves. McCorkle (1990) investigated gender inequalities in reviews published in the journal Speech Communication Association throughout the 1980s, and McGinty and Moore (2008) analyzed the gender issue among authors and reviewers of the American Political Science Review. In turn, Black (2011) assessed the quality of book reviews written or compiled by African American women published between 1980 and 1993 and that appeared in important sources frequently consulted by librarians for the activity of developing collections. In the study by Usmani and Shri (2016), reviews published in the Indian Journal of Gender Studies were analyzed, while Harvey and Lamond (2016) investigated gender disparities in Australian book reviews published in Australian Book Reviews and The Australian among 1985 and 2013. Thelwall (2017) investigated the Goodreads.com website proposing a direct relationship between the genre of authors and reviewers, and found that the grade given to a work is usually higher the more reviewers and authors are of the same genre.

2.2 Interviews

The interview is, in fact, a common undertaking in the production of knowledge. The ‘power of knowledge’, if not other types of power, is on the interviewee’s side. What researchers have to offer in return is not their opinions, but their respectful and interested attention. ( CZARNIAWSKA, 2004 , p.47-8)

Regarding the interviews, there is a significant volume of scientific methodology manuals highlighting its main characteristics as a data collection technique used in qualitative social research (BAUER; GASKELL, 2002). According to the method adopted, the interviews can be characterized, among other types, as structured, unstructured, semi-structured, or in depth. The latter are more flexible and allow the interviewee to construct their responses without being tied to a more rigorous level of directivity and mediation by the interviewer. In addition, they are highly valued for the wealth of information that can be obtained and for the possibility of expanding the understanding of the investigated object through the interaction between the interviewee and the interviewer. As an instrument for data collection in qualitative research, these interviews contribute to obtaining information about social realities and to improving knowledge in a given area of investigation. Interviews can also be focused or directed, problem-focused, ethnographic, journalistic, psychological or biographical. As a textual and discourse genre, the forms of analysis of the interviews can be linked to different epistemological orientations, for example, socio-discursive interactionism, discourse analysis, content analysis and narrative analysis.

Considering that the target audience of the interviews published in scientific journals is composed of academics, intellectuals and experts, it can be assumed that the assumptions of biographical interviews (DELORY-MOMBERGER, 2012), of scientifically informed interviews (LAUDEL; GLÄSER, 2007) and of interviews with specialists (GLÄSER; LAUDEL, 2009; 2010) are the most appropriate for this type of publication. The first allows “listening to what the interviewee has to say in all its uniqueness, as someone inserted in a social context, but who also acts to modify it” (FONTES, 2019, p. 95). In this interview the protagonist is the interviewee and not the interviewer; however, it must be observed that his narrative does not become an instrument of “biographical illusion”, that is, it is necessary to prevent the interviewee from becoming an “ideologist of his own life” by selecting certain significant events from his past trajectory to give a sense of the present, as pointed out by Bourdieu (1996, p.74-75). In turn, the interview with specialists (LAUDEL; GLÄSER, 2007, p. 98) is based on the understanding of the situation of the interview as “a communication process in which the two partners - interviewer and interviewee - together construct the meanings of the questions and answers". This requires “extensive preparation of the interview, the construction of a common language for communication during the interview and the negotiation of an adequate level of scientific depth between the interviewer and the interviewee” (LAUDEL; GLÄSER, 2007, p.108). And the informed scientific interview is based on the interviewee's specialist role, that is, the one who has specific knowledge of the facts to be reconstructed and the social phenomenon in which the interviewer is interested (GLÄSER; LAUDEL, 2009, 2010).

Finally, three aspects drew attention to the examination of this scientific literature on reviews and interviews. Firstly, the absence of studies published by Brazilian authors was noted, especially those in the field of Information Science, confirming the gap mentioned above. econdly, as in the citations, the normative and rhetorical perspectives of the reviews and interviews were highlighted in the Sociology of Science and Linguistics studies, and indicated that these textual genres have an essential role in the scientific communication process. Third, the studies analyzed offered several characteristics of the reviews and interviews that can constitute quantitative and qualitative indicators of scientific recognition, such as: the types of criticism received in the reviewed works, the depth of the text of the reviews and interviews; and the presence of citations in the reviewed works and interviews, among others.

3 METHODOLOGY

Walker, there is no path, the path is made by walking. ( MACHADO, 1969 , p.158)

The research is exploratory and descriptive, and adopted as methodological approaches bibliographic research (PIZZANI et al., 2012) and bibliometric and content analysis. Bibliometric analysis is performed by mapping and extracting information from a set of publications in order to develop indicators that allow exploring the knowledge base and intellectual structure of a scientific field (VAN RAAN, 2019). As Gläser and Laudel (2015, p. 303) refer, bibliometric methods “are an excellent medium for the triangulation of methods based on interviews or ethnographic”, however, these methods “do not completely avoid the problem of analyzing the research content because the results of bibliometric methods need to be interpreted ”. In turn, content analysis consists of a set of operations used to objectively and systematically analyze the messages enunciated in a text, enabling the inference of knowledge (BARDIN, 2011). For the development of the research, the following steps were performed:

• a) examination of the literature on reviews and interviews aimed at building thetheoretical and methodological framework of the research and the proposed analysis model. For this task, articles available in national and international scientific databases were used through access to the Capes Portal of Scientific Journals, as well as books and book chapters covering classic and current works in the fields of Sociology of Science, Information Science and Linguistics which covered the period between 1973 and 2020. However, there was an absence of studies on interviews published in scientific journals, despite the profusion of texts centered on the methodological aspects of the interviews as a technique for collecting research data.

• b) elaboration of the model for analyzing reviews and interviews. In this stage, the scientific literature examined, and the critical reading of the reviews and interviews published in Revista Estudos Feministas (REF), provided the bibliometric and content categories of these textual genres published in scientific journals.

• c) selection of a sample of reviews (n = 69) and interviews (n = 9) published in theperiod between 2018 and 2020 in REF. The journal is available in the SciELO electronic library covering volumes published since 2001, but the complete collection since the first edition in 1992 can be accessed on the journal's website (REF, 2020a). The choice of this journal is justified by the familiarity with the theme of feminist and gender studies in science demonstrated in previous studies (HAYASHI et al., 2007; RIGOLIN; HAYASHI; HAYASHI, 2013; CAMARGO; HAYASHI, 2017; HAYASHI et al., 2018) that it offered theoretical and methodological security for choosing REF. In addition, there was a high rate of reviews (539) and interviews (n = 59) published in the REF from 1992 to 2020, compared to those published in another journal in the field of feminist and gender studies, the magazine Cadernos Pagu (CP), which in the period between 1993 and 2020 published 140 reviews and 12 interviews. In the period between 2018 and 2020, for the selected sample, the two journals published 78 reviews and 9 interviews. Comparing these scores with those of two other reference journals in the field of Education - Educação & Sociedade, with 42 years of existence, and the Revista Brasileira de Educação, published by the National Association of Graduate Studies and Research in Education (ANPED), since 1995 - both classified in stratum A1 of the Qualis / CAPES list - it was found that they published in the same period, respectively, 7 and 15 reviews, and 4 and 3 interviews. In turn, in the same period, journals in the Information Science area (n = 13) classified in strata A1 and A4 (n = 13) published 22 reviews and 5 interviews.

• d) collecting and recording data in an Excel spreadsheet containing the categories and quantitative and qualitative variables related to the analysis model. In this stage, the selected reviews and interviews were read in full in order to operationalize the scientific recognition indicators.

• e) development of quantitative and qualitative indicators. In this phase, the datarecorded in the spreadsheet were tabulated and crossed generating tables, charts and graphs for better description and visualization of the results.

• e) analysis and interpretation of results. In this final stage, the theoretical and methodological constructs of Information Science and Sociology of Science were mobilized to interpret the research findings.

4 MODEL OF ANALYSIS OF REVIEWS AND INTERVIEWS

Every theoretical model is partial and approximate: it apprehends only a portion of the particularities of the represented object. ( BUNGE, 1974 , p.30)

Theoretical contributions on science evaluation and reward systems (MERTON, 1979; MERTON, 1985), as well as on the concepts of field, capital and scientific credit formulated by Bourdieu (2004) were essential for the construction of this model of analysis. The contributions of Hyland (2009) and Hyland and Diani (2009) on scientific discourses and review genres in the context of academic evaluation also contributed to the development of the analysis model.

Also important for the construction of the analysis model were the main elements that should appear in the reviews interviews contained in the guidelines to authors who wish to publish this type of publication in REF (2020b).

The analysis model includes the categories and the respective indicators present in reviews and interviews highlighting the positive and negative aspects of these textual genres. It is important to mention that these categories and indicators are not fixed, and can be expanded or reduced according to the content of the investigated corpus and by confronting the scientific literature that supports the analysis proposal.

Chart 1
Model of analysis of reviews and interviews

Categories	Indicators
Review profile	Year of publication; title of the review and journal. Authorship (individual or coauthorship). Biographical summary of the reviewed author(s). Citation of other works. Summary of the work or uncritical praise; Critical review.
Profile of the reviewed work	Title of the work and name of the author (s) or organizer (s). Year of publication, country, language, edition; publisher (academic or commercial). Type of work (book, collection, handbook, others). Type of authorship (individual, coauthorship, institutional). Languages; Portuguese translation. Work resulting from academic work (eg thesis, dissertation). Time elapsed between the publication of the review and the reviewed work. Work indexed in Google Books, BKCI, SciELO Books. Work reviewed in other journals.
Profile of the author (s) reviewed	Academic education; genre; institutional affiliation and country; field of studies in which it is inserted; scientific authority in the field of knowledge of the work; previous relationship with the reviewer.
Profile of the reviewers	Academic education; genre; institutional affiliation and country; field of studies in which it is inserted; member of the editorial board of the journal that published the review; junior researchers (graduate and postdoctoral students), senior researcher; prior relationship with the author of the work; reviewer and reviewee are peers in the same discipline; reviewer who prepared more than one review.
Values attributed to the reviewed work	Intrinsic qualities of the work (eg, innovative theoretical and methodological aspects) and extrinsic (eg, reference work in a given field of knowledge, and with many citations inside and outside the area). Contributions of the work to the advancement of knowledge in the area. Critical silences or omissions present in the work. Evaluation of the merit of the work and the reputation of the author. Relationship of the reviewed work with others in the field. Critical evaluations (favorable or negative) of the work or previous works of the author(s); comparison with similar works. Alert or persuade the reader about something, and spread new ideas.
Interview profile	Year of publication, title of the interview and the journal. Biographical synthesis of the interviewee (s); Contextualization of the topic addressed. Contact situation and circumstances of the interview (online; face-to-face; unplanned, eg during a scientific event). Scientific methodology adopted in the interview. Citation of the interviewee's works and others.
Interviewer profile	Academic education; genre; institutional affiliation and country; field of studies in which it is inserted; junior or senior researcher; previous relationship with the interviewee, domain and familiarity with the topic; ease of interaction with the interviewee; security and self-confidence when asking questions; knowledge of the interviewee's curriculum and scientific production.
Interviewee profile	Academic education; genre; institutional affiliation and country; field of studies in which it is inserted; previous relationship with the interviewer; recognized authority in the scientific field; highly cited author; willingness to dialogue; ability to clearly state one’s views.
Values attributed to the interviews	Ability to synthesize the topic addressed; contribution to the academic debate; expansion of knowledge in the area; discourse organization; fidelity to the interviewee's thinking; formulating questions and offering answers that contemplate the lay and specialized public.

• Source: Elaborated by the author

It is worth emphasizing that some indicators of this model refer to quantitative data, making it possible to analyze, for example: the annual distribution of published reviews and interviews; the total of the different types of authorship (individual, coauthorship and institutional) of the reviewed work and the authorship of the reviewers; types of works reviewed (books, collections, handbooks, or others); the most prolific interviewer and reviewer, that is, those who conducted more than one review and interview; the timeliness of the reviews taking into account the time elapsed between the publication of the work and the review; citations of other works in the reviews; the gender of reviewers, interviewees and interviewers in order to identify possible asymmetries; the presence of the work reviewed in book indexers, among other characteristics of indicators that can be quantified.

In turn, qualitative indicators based on the content of these textual genres reveal attributes and qualities that are usually valued in the preparation of reviews and in the conduct of interviews, for example: the intrinsic and extrinsic qualities of the reviewed work; the types of critical assessments present in the reviews; the contextualization of the theme addressed; the interviewee's biographical synthesis, among other characteristics.

The bibliometric evidence of scientific recognition is not only related to the authors of the reviewed works and to the interviewees. For example, in the analysis model, the identification of reviewers and junior interviewers may signal an opportunity for researchers at the beginning of their careers to include their own voices in current debates in their own specialized fields, as Hyland and Diani (2009) have already mentioned. In short, the analysis of reviews and interviews can play an essential role as empirical objects that assist in the identification of quantitative and qualitative values about scientific recognition in specific scientific fields.

Finally, it is worth pointing out some limitations of the analysis model. For example, some indicators - mainly qualitative ones - will not always be present in reviews and interviews, as these differ in relation to their content. The availability of sources for collecting information about reviewers, reviews, interviewees and interviewers can be an obstacle or delay the research data collection process. This requires not only a thorough reading of these textual genres, but also the search for biographical information, institutional affiliation and the gender of reviewees, reviewers, interviewees and interviewers through consultations with the Lattes Platform of CNPq curricula, personal and university websites and/or research centers, on Wikipedia and Google Scholar, in profiles of academic and social networks such as Researchgate, Twitter and Facebook. However, this step is quite time consuming, and in some cases the success rate may be below the desired level, as the updating of data on these various academic information platforms and social networks depends on the authors. However, although it takes time, this method is necessary to guarantee a better accuracy of the collected data. Coding authorship by gender is also a complex process in bibliometric studies, as mistaken identifications can have an impact on the accuracy of the data. Thus, knowing the field of study of the authors of the reviewed works and of the interviewees contributes to a better theoretical consistency when analyzing the indicators. Considering that the analysis model was applied to a sample of a single journal, the degree of comparison and/or generalization of the results is limited. This signals the need to expand the corpus investigated in future studies, to enable longitudinal analyzes and also contribute to a better understanding of the science reward system in different fields of knowledge. Despite these limitations, the analysis model fulfills its objectives by keeping its challenges in mind and pointing out possible solutions to demonstrate scientific recognition in these textual genres.

5 APPLICATION OF THE ANALYSIS MODEL

(....) recognition and esteem are attributed to scientists who have best fulfilled their roles, to those who have made important contributions to the common stock of knowledge. ( MERTON, 1979 , p.399)

To apply the analysis model, a sample of reviews (n = 69) and interviews (n = 9) published in the Revista Estudos Feministas - REF in the period between 2018 and 2020 were selected. Below are presented some quantitative and qualitative indicators of the analysis model related to the profiles of reviewers, reviews, interviewers and interviewees, and also to the profiles of the review, the reviewed work, and the interviews. These indicators show the scientific recognition present in these textual genres.

The reviews and interviews published in REF presented the following annual distribution: a) reviews - 2018 (n = 18); 2019 (n = 26) and 2020 (n = 25); b) interviews - 2018 (n = 3); 2019 (n = 4) and 2020 (n = 2). During this period, the averages of reviews (n = 23) and interviews (n = 3) remained stable.

In relation to the total number of authors (n = 198) involved in these publications, the results showed the following distribution: reviewers (n = 81), reviewees (n = 95), interviewees (n = 9) and interviewers (n = 13). When investigating the types of authorship, it was found that individual authorship is present in most of the reviewed works (n = 54) and among reviewers (n = 57). Double co-authorships were identified in the reviewed works (n = 6) and among the reviewers (n = 12). Triple co-authorship was in effect between the interviewers (n = 2) and in the reviewed works (n = 6). And the quadruple co-authorship was identified only in a reviewed work. It was found that an author (Djamila Ribeiro) and a co-author (Nancy Fraser) had two works reviewed, and that two works (by Raquel Solnit and Claudia Korol) were reviewed by the same reviewer (Paula Queiroz Dutra). In addition, the same interviewer (Gabrielle Vivian Bittelbrun) conducted two interviews (Catarina Martins and Ana Gabriela Macedo) and was also the author of a reviewed work.

Gender identification is an important aspect in bibliometric studies, as it affects a series of metrics such as: scientific productivity, funding received, order of authorship, etc. which can reveal inequalities and biases in scientific authorship analyzes.

Although there are sites that identify gender by people's first names - Baby Names Guess (2020), Predict Gender (2020), Genderize.io (2020) - they all have limitations. In this regard, we agree with Eichmann-Kalwara, Jorgensen and Weingart (2018) that the process of identifying the authors' gender without their consent or contribution is susceptible to gross simplifications. In addition, assumptions about the relationship between gender and names can generate data distortion. Dworkin et al. (2020, p.2) also draw attention to the fact that “instances of known and inferred gender have the potential to incite explicit or implicit prejudices in citing authors” warning about the consequences of binary gender attribution disregarding transgender or non-binary. In the view of Earhart, Risam and Bruno (2020, p.6) the creation of a non-binary category, “better represents the fluidity of the genre so often neglected by bibliometrics”.

Graph 1 presents the results of the research and allows us to observe that women are the majority, corresponding to 79.2% (n = 156) of the total, and 20.8% (n = 41) are men. These results suggest the under-representation of men in the authorship of these textual genres.

Graph 1
Distribution of authors by gender (*)

In Graph 1, when considering the authors' gender representation, we have adopted the categories of “men” and “women”, while recognizing the limitations of this categorization, since, as stated by Ehart, Risam and Bruno (2020), it would be better to give authors the opportunity to contribute their gender data if they wish. Therefore, it is worth clarifying that the gender identification of REF authors was obtained through information contained in the texts and at the bottom of reviews and interviews respecting the declared gender identity, although there was no consultation with the authors. When this was not enough, other sources were consulted such as: personal and institutional websites, search programs, profiles in academic and social media. We avoid the use of online databases that make gender prediction based on the person's name, despite the precision indices presented, as we understand that the results do not cover current understandings about gender construction.

The analysis of the profiles of reviewers, reviewees, interviewers and interviewees according to their geographical location (Table 1) revealed the prevalence of authors from Brazil (n = 138) in all categories, which is not surprising considering that REF is a journal aimed at consolidating the field of feminist and gender studies in the country, as stated on the magazine's website. It is also possible to note the presence of authors (n = 19) from other countries in South America. Among North American authors (n = 20), those from the USA prevailed. From Europe (n = 17), authors from Portugal (n = 6) stood out. In addition to these, authors from Oceania (n = 2), Africa (n = 1) and Asia (n = 1) were also identified.

These results demonstrate that in REF the reviews and interviews have been an expressive space for the dissemination of feminist and gender studies from the voices of IberoAmerica and others with a diverse geographical origin.

Table 1
Distribution of authors by countries

	Countries		Reviewer	Reviewee	Interviewer	Interviewee
South America	Argentina		3	2	1	0
	Brazil		72	52	10	4
	Chile		0	2	0	0
	Colombia		2	5	0	0
	Ecuador		0	2	0	0
	Uruguay		0	1	1	0
North America	USA		0	16	1	0
	Mexico		1	1	0	0
	Puerto Rico		0	1	0	0
Europe	Germany		0	1	0	0
	Spain		1	2	0	1
	France		0	0	0	1
	Ireland		0	2	0	0
	Portugal		2	2	0	2
	United Kingdom		0	3	0	0
Oceania	Australia		0	2	0	0
Africa	Mozambique		0	0	0	1
Asia	Israel		0	1	0	0
	Total		81	95	13	9

• Source: Elaborated by the author

The authors' training indicators confirmed the findings of Sanz (2009) on the profile of the reviewers, pointing out that the reviews published in Spain tended to be left in the hands of students. In other words, the results obtained revealed that the majority of REF's reviewers (n = 44) are junior researchers, that is, those who are still in training and taking undergraduate (n = 1), master's (n = 17) and doctorate (n = 26). With close scores, reviewers (n = 37) were identified who have already completed postgraduate studies at the doctoral (n = 36) and master's (n = 1) levels, representing 45.7% of this category. Conversely, most of the reviewees are doctors (n = 74) and masters (n = 6) and the reviewees who are junior researchers (n = 3) represented 3.2% of the total.

Among the interviewers (n = 13) the scenario is repeated with the majority having completed their doctorate (n = 7) and master's (n = 1), and the rest (n = 5) are junior researchers still in the process of obtaining a degree for undergraduate, master's and doctorate. Among the interviewees (n = 9) the majority (n = 6) have already completed their doctorate, with no junior researchers in this category.

It was also observed the presence of professionals (n = 15) from various areas among the reviewees (n = 11), interviewees (n = 3) and interviewer (n = 1) distributed among writers (n = 6), journalists (n = 2), psychologists (n = 2), lawyer (n = 1), architect (n = 1), popular educator (n = 1), physiotherapist (n = 1) and psychoanalyst (n = 1).

Among the various institutions (n = 89) in which the authors (n = 198) are affiliated, universities (n = 78) in various countries prevailed (n=16).

Table 2
Institutional linkage of authors by countries

Countries	Universities	Authors	Others	Authors	Total of institutions	Total of authors
Brazil	43	125	5	6	48	131
Argentina	1	1	1	1	2	2
Colombia	3	6	1	1	4	7
Ecuador	2	2	0	0	2	2
Uruguay	0	0	2	2	2	2
USA	12	14	2	2	14	16
Canada	1	1	0	0	1	1
Mexico	2	2	0	0	2	2
Puerto Rico	1	1	0	0	1	1
Germany	1	1	0	0	1	1
Spain	2	5	0	0	2	5
France	1	1	0	0	1	1
Ireland	2	2	0	0	2	2
Portugal	4	4	0	0	4	4
United Kingdom	1	1	0	0	1	1
Australia	1	2	0	0	1	2
Israel	1	1	0	0	1	1
Total	78	169	11	12	89	181*

• (*) Excluding retirees (n = 4) and unemployed (n=13) Source: Elaborated by the author

Among Brazilian institutions, the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) achieved the highest score of authors (n = 37), with reviewers (n = 25), reviewees (n = 6) and interviewers (n = 6) linked to the host institution of REF, denoting that this is a storehouse of authors who contribute to the magazine for carrying out reviews and interviews. Among the authors (n = 14) linked to US universities (n = 12), those from The New School for Social Research stood out (n = 3). In universities in European countries, authors (n = 4) from Portuguese universities and authors (n = 5) from universities in Spain stood out. Other authors (n = 12) were linked to Associations (n = 3), government and development agencies (n = 5), non-governmental organizations (n = 2) and the press (n = 2), that is, institutions (n = 10) from countries in Brazil (n = 5), USA (n = 3), Uruguay (n = 2) and Argentina (n = 1). Retired authors are from Brazil (n = 2), Mozambique (n = 1) and the United Kingdom (n = 1), and non-linked authors are from Brazil (n = 7), USA (n = 2), United Kingdom (n = 1), Germany (n = 1), Argentina (n = 1), Uruguay (n = 1).

Table 3 shows other indicators related to reviews (n=69).

Table 3
Indicators related to reviews

Indicators	Total
1. Time elapsed between the publication of the work and the review 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years	26 25 13 3 2
2. Languages and translation of works Works in Portuguese Works translated into Portuguese Works in Spanish (n=9) and English (n=8)	38 14 17
3. Countries of publication of works South America: Argentina (n = 2), Brazil (n = 50), Colombia (n = 1), Ecuador (n=1)	54
North America= USA (n=6), Mexico (n=1), Puerto Rico (n=1) Europe = Spain (n=4) Portugal (n=1), United Kingdom (n=1), Switzerland (n=1)	8 7
4. Works resulting from academic works Master's degree (n = 3); PhD (n = 8); Post doctorate (n=1)	12
5. Typology of works Anthologies (n = 2), Dossiers (n = 1); Collections (n = 18) Biography (n = 1) and memories (n = 3) Essays (n = 29); Academic research (n = 10) Poetry (n = 2); Romance (n = 1); Fiction (n = 1); Young Adult (n=1)	21 4 39 5
6. Biographical summary of the review Yes (n = 39); No (n=30)	69
7. Review features Summary of the work (n = 34); Critical review (n=35)	69
8. Citations in the review Yes (n = 59); No (n = 10) Total citations	69 280
9. Works indexed in Google Books Yes (n = 24); No (n = 25); No preview (n = 20)	69
10. Works already reviewed in other journals Yes (n = 42); No (n = 27)	69

• Source: Elaborated by the author

It was found that the majority (n = 62) of the reviews follow the recommendation of REF on the need for the works to have been published at most two years ago in Brazil and four years abroad. However, there is a minority (n = 5) of reviews that exceeded those times.

As for the languages of the works reviewed, the prevalence of works in Portuguese (n = 38) and translated into Portuguese (n = 14) was observed, representing together 75.4% of the total. These works (n = 52) in Portuguese were published in Brazil (n = 51) and Portugal (n = 1). In contrast, only 24.6% (n = 17) of the total works were published in Spanish (n = 9) and English (n = 8). Among the works published in North American countries, those published in the USA stand out (n = 6). In European countries, works published in Spain stand out (n = 4). It is worth noting that one of the English works reviewed in 2020 was published in the USA in 2016, but it is a text originally written in 1974 by Marilyn Strathern that remained on file for four decades and only then came to light. As the reviewer points out, this "can be considered a kind of lost classic of seventist feminism, since even with the passage of time, it addresses issues of gender and inequality with vivid contemporary relevance" (SANDER, 2020, p. 1).

The analysis of the reviewed works revealed that the minority (n = 12) comes from academic research to obtain master's (n = 3) and doctorate (n = 8) degrees and is the result of postdoctoral research (n = 1). Among these, three works were awarded. Barros (2016) received the Gilberto Velho de Teses Award (UFRJ) for research on Brazilian feminist art. The Cubas study (2018) received the Memories Revealed research award from the National Archives and the Center for the Reference for Political Struggles in Brazil, and portrays the role of nuns in the face of the Brazilian military regime between the 1960s and 1985. As highlighted by Pellegrini and Boen (2020, p.1) in this work, "the historian aims to reallocate these women as historical subjects, highlighting the effective participation of resistance to the civil-military dictatorship". Lins' work (2018) received the award from the Brazilian Association of University Publishers (ABEU) and investigated how the creation of Law no. 11,430/2006, popularly known as the Maria da Penha Law, had an impact on the functioning of the Women's Defense Stations. As Silva (2019, p. 1) refers, this work “investigated the law in the 'between the lines' of the daily lives of professionals who handle and apply the rules, seeking to explain choices, dilemmas and procedures that define the links between norm and practice”.

When considering the typology of the reviewed works, it was found that the majority are essays (n = 29) by renowned authors in the field of gender and feminist studies from Brazil (n = 11), and abroad (n = 18), such as Mary Beard, Sylvia Bashevkin, Seyla Benhabib, Judith Butler, Nancy Fraser, Marilyn Strathern, Débora Diniz, Mirian Goldenberg, Flávia Birolli, along with works derived from academic research (n = 10) represented 56.5% of the total reviews. This type of academic textual genre is very common in the areas of Human Sciences, and consists of an in-depth exposition of ideas and personal points of view on a given topic, with original conclusions.

The collections (n = 18) and anthologies (n = 2) made up 28.9% of the total reviews including Brazilian (n = 12) and foreign (n = 8) authors, with emphasis on works that can be considered classics of feminist thought and gender, for example, the anthology organized by Angela Davis (2016) which brings together several studies with racism and sexism as the driving force in the dynamics of capitalist exclusion; the collection of articles on masculinities published by Raewyn Connell (2016) throughout his career; and the collection of articles that portray 50 years of feminist mobilizations, achievements and challenges in Argentina, Brazil and Chile, organized by Eva Alterman Blay and Lúcia Avelar (2017). The other typologies of the reviewed works represented 17.4% (n = 10) of the total and bring together several textual genres, such as literary works of fiction, romance, poetry and children's literature, in addition to biographies, including that of the sociologist Herbert Daniel (GREEN, 2018), and memoirs, such as those of Esther Newton (2018), a cultural anthropologist recognized for her pioneering spirit in the field of ethnography of gay and lesbian communities in the United States.

It was observed that most (n = 39) of the reviews presented a biographical synthesis of the reviewed author (s), and the others (n = 30) did not contain this type of information, thus contradicting the guidelines for REF authors. In turn, it was observed that most reviews (n = 35) offered critical perspectives on the reviewed work, however, reviews with a close score (n = 34) were limited to summarizing the work.

The strong presence of citations (n = 280) was noted in most reviews (n = 59). In contrast, few reviews (n = 10) did not include citations. These results corroborate Nicolaisen's (2002b) argument that citations in book reviews offer more reliability to the text, when compared to those that only refer to the revised work. In other words, when using citations, reviewers use an important resource to support their points of view expressed in the reviewed works and also to relate these with other works in the same field of knowledge.

Another aspect of citations and reviews is related to the indexing of the work reviewed in Google Books, an online database that provides full or partial view of books, and allows to find keywords, bibliographic information and citations. As Kousha and Thelwall refer (2017), Google Books indexes a large number of academic books and is an important source of book citations. For the authors, in the area of Human Sciences, citations from Google Books are more numerous than those from the Book Citation Index (BKCI), constituting a particularly useful impact indicator for book-based disciplines. The results showed that 63.8% (n = 44) of the reviewed works are indexed in Google Books including works with total (n = 24) and partial (n = 20) visualization, while the remaining 36.2% (n = 25) are absent.

It was found that the majority (n = 42) of the works have already been reviewed in other journals in Brazil (n = 31) and abroad (n = 11). These findings suggest that reviews published in more than one journal can give these works greater visibility and the possibility of being cited. On the other hand, 39.1% (n = 27) of the works were reviewed only in REF. Regarding the citation in the Web of Science (WoS) of the reviewed authors, the results revealed that 51.6% (n = 49) received citations on this basis, with emphasis on the scores of Nancy Fraser (n = 5,085) and Marilyn Strathern (n = 1,844). Among the reviewed Brazilian authors Miriam Pillar Grossi (n = 833) and Rita Schmitt (n = 254) received the highest number of citations.

Table 4 shows some indicators about the interviews, according to the analysis model.

Table 4
Indicators related to the interviews, interviewers and interviewees

Indicators	Total
1. Time elapsed between the interview and its publication 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 13 years 38 years	1 3 2 1 1 1
2. Interview locations Scientific events (n = 3); Home or workplace (n = 2); University (n = 1); Association (n = 1); Correspondence (n = 1) not applicable (n = 1)	9
3. Methodology adopted in the interviews Biographical (n = 3); With specialists (n = 3); Scientifically informed (n=3)	9
4. Biographical summary of the interviewee Yes (n=8); No (n=1)	9
5. Previous relationship between interviewer and interviewee Yes (n=2); No (n=7)	9
6. Contextualization of the theme addressed	9
7. Quotes in the interview	45
8. Interviewees cited in WoS	3

• Source: Elaborated by the author

Although in the instructions to authors, REF does not establish that the interviews to be published have to be recent, it was found that the time between the completion and publication of the majority (n = 7) of the interviews was between one and four years. Only two interviews far exceeded that time, that is, they occurred thirteen and 38 years since publication. The first took place in the summer of 1981 through a correspondence between Christie McDonald, professor of Comparative Literature at Yale University, and the philosopher Jacques Derrida. The translation and republication of this interview in the REF was justified considering the objective of “expanding reading and fostering the reception of the thought of deconstruction in the Brazilian philosophical sphere” (GRENHA; RODRIGUES, 2019, p. 1). In turn, the interview published in 2019 with lawyer Therezinha Zerbini took place in 2006 and was conducted by Ana Rita Fonteles for her doctoral thesis. According to the REF editorial, its publication was justified because it was considered “an important document of the memory of a fundamental part of the female resistance to the military dictatorship in the country” (LAGO et. al., 2019, p. 3).

As for the locations where the interviews were held, three occurred during the 13th Worlds of Women Congress and International Seminar Making Gender 11, held in 2017 at the Federal University of Santa Catarina, denoting that scientific communication in invisible colleges constitutes an important opportunity for vis-à-vis contact between research pairs, as support Hayashi e Guimarães (2016).

When analyzing the methodologies adopted in the interviews (n = 9) the results revealed an equal distribution between three types. The biographical interviews (n = 3) were carried out with the Brazilian cartoonist Cecília Alves Pinto, better known as Ciça, the Mozambican writer Paulina Chiziane and the lawyer Therezinha Zerbini. The interviews with specialists (n = 3) were those conducted with the Portuguese researchers Ana Gabriela Macedo, Catarina Martins and with the Brazilian writer Conceição Evaristo. And the scientifically informed interviews (n = 3) were carried out with the researcher Núria Pomar Beltrán, from Universidad de Barcelona, with the Franco-Algerian philosopher Jacques Derrida and with the Brazilian conductor Ligia Amadio, head conductor of the Montevideo Philharmonic Orchestra.

Although it is not a requirement of REF for the interviews to present a biographical synthesis of the interviewees, the majority (n = 8) exposed a brief profile contributing to the reader to situate the academic and professional trajectory of the interviewees in the context of the theme addressed in the interview. The only exception was the interview with Jacques Derrida, although the translators could have presented a biographical summary of the philosopher by way of clarification for neophyte readers in the field of Philosophy.

The existence of a previous relationship between interviewers and interviewees was observed in the minority (n = 2) of the interviews. For example, Christie McDonald and Jacques Derrida had already met at a congress at the University of Montreal in 1979 and from this found a joint publication (DERRIDA; LEVESQUE; MCDONALD, 1982). In the case of the interview with conductor Ligia Amadio, one of the interviewers reported that she already knew her, as in childhood they studied together and met later when they entered higher education at the same university (PINI; ARISI; CARAMORI, 2020). All interviews also presented a contextualization of the theme addressed, as well as including in the text citations (n = 45) of works by the interviewees and other authors. Regarding the quotes of respondents on the Web of Science, the results showed that Jacques Derrida (n = 1866), Ligia Amadio (n = 194) and Conceição Evaristo (n = 6) were the only ones who received citations. The rest (n = 6) were not mentioned in the WoS.

Last but not least, some indicators are presented (Chart 2) that express the values attributed to reviews and interviews, according to the analysis model. It is worth noting the qualitative character of these indicators, since they are based on the content of reviews and interviews and were extracted from the complete texts and titles of these textual genres published in REF.

Chart 2
Values attributed to reviews and interviews

Intrinsic qualities of the reviewed work: a) the author joined the myriad of authors who challenged the conventions surrounding motherhood; b) the author was bold in her research methodology; c) the most innovative reflection in the book is the way in which temporality is approached; d) the work proposal is innovative because it does not stick to conventional modes of textual production. Extrinsic qualities of the reviewed work: a) work with important contributions to all the disciplinary areas in which it fits; b) the work advances in discussions in the field of gender and politics and in its intersections with other areas, such as diplomatic history. Critical evaluations of the work - 1) negative - the forms of motherhood that the author addresses in her text are mostly referenced by the middle and upper classes, leaving a wide range of women and their maternity units out of this dialogue; 2) positive - a) despite the criticisms, it is necessary to recognize how pedagogical the author's text is; b) an important contribution to the study of bisexualities, especially considering that it is the first to be written in Spain. Critical silences and omissions present in the reviewed work - a) the narrative is primarily that of the history that permeates Europe and the USA; b) the book does not incorporate any representative of black feminism; c) the voices of activists are relatively overshadowed by theoretical reflections. Relationship of the work reviewed with others in the field - a) the work approaches authors from the Global North, from the texts of the Anglo-Saxon and French tradition that dominate the ideas of the social from the second half of the 20th century; b) Throughout the chapters the work recalls aspects of the book by the historian Thomas Laqueur; c) important contribution to gender theories.

Evaluation of the reputation of the reviewed author - a) The author was one of the founders of the Working Group “A Mulher na Literatura” of the National Association of Graduate Studies and Research in Letters and Linguistics (ANPOLL), and one of the main articulators of the theoretical repertoire emerged in this context, through the many articles he wrote; b) The author is recognized as one of the pioneering researchers on masculinities. Ability to synthesize the theme of the work reviewed - a) pitfalls of maternal blame; b) gender inequalities in Brazilian democracy; c) black women and museum exhibitions.

Contributions of the interview to the academic debate and expansion of knowledge in the area - a) The interview is a movement towards the construction of women's stories, feminist stories, which marked the history of Brazilian graphic humor; b) the author also spoke of the importance of the new generation of African writers and the need for the feminist movement to be self-critical, in order to expand the inclusion of new knowledge; c) the author demonstrates how the literature produced in Mozambique dialogues with recent events in the country's history, marked by the war of liberation. Ability to synthesize the theme of the interview - a) construction of women's stories and feminist stories that marked the history of Brazilian graphic humor; b) being the object of oppression is not being a victim; c) black literature, black feminism and translation; c) war, women and memories; d) gender equality and family reconciliation.

• Source: Elaborated by the author

Not all values that can be attributed to reviews and interviews were present in the sample of these textual genres published in REF. For example, in the interviews, questions that contemplated the lay and specialized public were not identified. However, as Alvesson (2011) points out, it is important to be aware of the limited range of what can be captured through interviews, since the interview situation is a complex event from a social and linguistic point of view. Nor were passages identified that could suggest an attempt to persuade the reader about any aspect of the reviewed work. These results demonstrate that the proposed analysis model must be understood as flexible, since not all indicators will always be present in the investigated corpus.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In this flow of many texts that come and go, in this movement from readings to theories, history and criticism are written. ( RAMOS, LAGO, MINELLA, 2018 ).

The analysis model, elaborated through a multidisciplinary approach based on different research traditions, such as Bibliometrics, Sociology of Science, and Linguistics, and the results obtained in the application of this model mirrored the fact that scientific recognition is present in reviews and interviews, as pointed out by the results of the analysis of a sample of these textual genres published in REF. Among the indicators of scientific recognition revealed in the analysis can be highlighted, for example, the reviews of award-winning works, the performance of junior researchers as reviewers and interviewers, the presence of prominent researchers in the field of feminist and gender studies among those reviewed, reviewers, interviewees and interviewers, and the insertion of quotes from other works to support the reviews and interviews, among others. In a way, if taken from a Bourdieusian perspective, these indicators may signal an increase in the stock of scientific capital of the actors involved in this scientific communication process.

Considering the singularities of these textual genres, it is suggested that the application of this model in future studies can be enriched with the selection of a diversified research corpus, through the selection of journals from different areas of knowledge, as a way of allowing comparisons between the findings. It is also worth stressing that the analysis of citations present in REF's reviews and interviews can broaden the scope of the results, by revealing, for example, the argument of Costa and Alvarez (2013, p. 579) that “citation practices are responsible for forming academic canons” and that “a feminist canon is built by a transnational citation market”.

Finally, in addition to electing reviews and interviews in the field of Information Science as an object of study, proposing and applying a model for analyzing these textual genres, research has shown that reviews and interviews can occupy, alongside citations, a place of prominence in the scientific communication process and the science reward system.

Acknowledgment

To CNPq for the grant of the Research Productivity Scholarship that made this study possible, and to the RDBCI reviewers for their valuable comments.

REFERÊNCIAS

• ALVESSON, Matts. Interpreting interviews. London: Sage, 2011.
• BARDIN, Laurence. Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70, 2011.
• BAUER, Martin, GASKELL, George. Pesquisa qualitativa com texto, imagem e som: um manual prático. Petrópolis: Vozes; 2002.
• BLACK, Kimberly. Reviewing the unspeakable: an analysis of book-reviewing practices of Afro American women's writings of the 1980s. Black Women, Gender & Families, v.5, n.1, p.1-16, 2011.
• BLAY, Eva Alterman; AVELAR, Lúcia. 50 anos de feminismo: Argentina, Brasil e Chile: a construção das mulheres como atores políticos e democráticos. São Paulo: Edusp, 2017.
• BOURDIEU, Pierre. A ilusão biográfica. In: BOURDIEU, Pierre. Razões práticas: sobre a teoria da ação. Campinas: Papirus, 1996. p. 74-82.
• BOURDIEU, Pierre. Os usos sociais da ciência: por uma sociologia clínica do campo científico. Trad. Denice Barbara Catani. São Paulo: Ed. UNESP, 2004.
• BUNGE, Mario. Teoria e realidade. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1974.
• CAMARGO, Juliana Ravaschio Franco de; HAYASHI, Maria Cristina Piumbato Innocentini. Coautoria e participação feminina em periódicos brasileiros da área de cirurgia: estudo bibliométrico. RDBCI: Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação, Campinas, SP, v.15, n.1, p.148-170, jan./abr. 2017. Disponível em: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/rdbci/article/view/8646289 Acesso em: 20 abr. 2020.
  » https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/rdbci/article/view/8646289
• CHAMPION, Dean, MORRIS, Michel. A content analysis of book reviews in the AJS, ASR, and Social Forces. American Sociological Review, v.78, n.5, p.1256-1265; 1973.
• CHI, Pei-Shan; JEURIS, Wouter; THIJS, Bart; GLÄNZEL, Wolfgang. Book bibliometrics: a new perspective and challenge in indicator bulding based on the Book Citation Index. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMETRICS, 15., 2015. [S.l.]: Proceedings of the..., 2015. p.1161-1169.
• CHUA, Alton; BANERJEE, Snehasish. Understanding review helpfulness as a function of reviewer reputation, review rating, and review depth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v.66, n.2, p.354-362, 2015.
• CLARIVATE ANALYTICS: Putting books back into the library: completing the research picture: The Book Citation Index^SM 2020. Disponível em: http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/multidisciplinary/bookcitationindex/. Acesso em: 02 abr 2020.
  » http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/multidisciplinary/bookcitationindex
• CONNELL, Raewyn. Gênero em termos reais. Trad. Marília Moschovich. São Paulo: nVersos, 2016.
• COSTA, Claudia; ALVAREZ, Sonia. A circulação das teorias feministas e os desafios da tradução. Revista Estudos Feministas, Florianópolis, v. 21, n.2, p. 579-586, maio/ago.2018.
• CRONIN, Blaise; LA BARRE, Kathryn. Mickey Mouse and Milton: book publishing in the humanities. Learned Publishing, v.17, p.85-98, 2004.
• CUBAS, Caroline Jaques. Do hábito à resistência: freiras em tempos de ditadura militar no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Arquivo Nacional, 2018.
• CZARNIAWSKA, Barbara. Narratives in social science research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2004.
• DAVIS, Angela. Mulheres, raça e classe. Trad. Heci Candiani. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2016.
• DELORY-MOMBERGER, Christine. Abordagens metodológicas na pesquisa biográfica. Revista Brasileira de Educação, v. 17, n.51, p. 523-536, set./dez. 2012.
• DERRIDA, J. L’oreille de l’autre: otobiographies, transferts, traductions: textes et débats avec Jacques Derrida, sous la direction de Claude Lévesque et Christie McDonald. Montréal: VLB, 1982.
• DILEVKO, Juris et al. Investigating the value of scholarly book reviews for the work of academic reference librarians. Journal of Academic Librarianship, v.32, n.5, p.452-466, 2006.
• DIODATO, Virgil. Impact and scholarliness in arts and humanities book reviews: a citation analysis. ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, 47., 1984. Proceedings of the..., 1984. p.217-221.
• DWORKIN, Jordan D. et al. The extent drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists. bioRxvi, p.1-28, Apr. 8, 2020.
• EAST, John. The scholarly book review in the Humanities: an academic Cinderella?” Journal of Scholarly Publishing, v.43, n.1, p.52-67, 2011.
• EARHART, Amy; RISAM, Roopika; BRUNO, Matthew. Citational politics: quantitying the influence of gender on citation in Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, fqaa011, p.1-14, Aug. 2020.
• EICHMANN-KALWARA, Nickoal; JORGENSEN, Jeana; WEINGART, Scott. Representation in digital humanities conferences (2000-2015). In: LOSH, Elisabeth; WERNIMONT, Jacqueline. (ed.). Bodies of information: intersectional feminism and digital humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2018. p.72-92.
• ELSEVIER. Scopus content coverage guide: update January 2016. Disponível em: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content Acesso em: 20 abr. 2020.
  » https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content
• FLECK, Christian; MERTON, Robert King. In: WRIGHT, James (ed.) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Burlington: Elsevier Science, 2015. p.246-251.
• FONTES, Baruc Correia. A entrevista biográfica na sociologia. Revista Sociais & Humanas, v.32, n.3, p. 83-97, 2019.
• GLÄNZEL, Wolfgang; THIJS, Bart; CHI, Pei-Shan. The challenges to expand bibliometric studies from periodical literature to monographic literature with a new data source: the book citation index. Scientometrics, v.109, n.3, p.2165-2179, Dec. 2016.
• GLÄSER, Jochen; LAUDEL, Grit. On interviewing “good” and “bad” experts. In: BOGNER, Alexander; LITTIG, Beate; MENZ, Wofgang. (ed.). Interviewing Experts. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. p. 117-137.
• GLÄSER, Jochen; LAUDEL, Grit. Experteninterviews und qualitative inhaltsanalyse als instrumente rekonstruierender untersuchungen. Wiesbaden: Springer, 2010.
• GLÄSER, Jochen; LAUDEL, Grit. A bibliometric reconstruction of research trials for qualitative investigations of scientific innovations. Historical Social Research, v.40, n.3, p. 299-303, 2015.
• GIMÉNEZ-TOLEDO, Elea; MAÑANA-RODRIGUEZ, Jorge; TEJADA-ARTIGAS, Carlos Miguel. Scholarly book publishing: its information sources for evaluation in the social sciences and humanities. El profesional de la información, v.24, n.6, p.705-715, nov.-dic. 2015.
• GORRAIZ, Juan; PURNELL, Phillip; GLÄNZEL, Wolfgang. Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v.64, n.7, p.1388-1398, 2013.
• GORRAIZ, Juan; GUMPENBERGER, Christian; PURNELL, Phillip. The power of book reviews: a simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes. Scientometrics, v.98, n.2, p.841-852, 2014.
• GRENHA, Tatiana; RODRIGUES, Carla. “’Coreografias’: entrevista com Jacques Derrida”. Revista Estudos Feministas, Florianópolis, v. 27, n. 1, e50638, 2019.
• GREEN, James Naylor. Revolucionário e gay: a vida extraordinária de Herbert Daniel. Trad. de Marília Sette Câmara, Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2018.
• HARTLEY, James. Book reviewing in the BJET: a survey of BJET’s referees’ and writers’ views. British Journal of Educational Technology, v.36, n.5, p.897-905, 2005.
• HARTLEY, James. Reading and writing book reviews across disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v.57, n.9, p.1194-1207, 2006.
• HARTLEY, James; HO, Yu-Shan. The decline and fall of book reviews in psychology: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, v.112, n.1, p.655-657, Jul. 2017.
• HARVEY, Melinda; LAMOND, Julieanne. Taking mesure of gender disparity in Australian book Reviewing as a field, 1985 and 2013. Australian Humanities Review, v.60, p.84-107, 2016.
• HAYASHI, Maria Cristina Piumbato Innocentini et al. Gênero nos estudos bibliométricos apresentados nos ENANCIBs (1996-2016). Revista ACB, v.23, n.1, p. 54-68, 2018. Disponível em: https://revista.acbsc.org.br/racb/article/view/1396/pdf Acesso em: 20 abr. 2020.
  » https://revista.acbsc.org.br/racb/article/view/1396/pdf
• HAYASHI, Maria Cristina Piumbato Innocentini et al. Indicadores da participação feminina em ciência e tecnologia. Transinformação, Campinas, SP, v.19, n.2, p. 169-187, maio/ago.2007. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext& pid=S0103-37862007000200007&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=pt Acesso em: 20 abr. 2020.
  » https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext& pid=S0103-37862007000200007&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=pt
• HAYASHI, Maria Cristina Piumbato Innocentini; GUIMARÃES, Vera Aparecida Lui. A comunicação da ciência em eventos científicos na visão dos pesquisadores. Em Questão, v.22, n.3, p. 161-183, set./dez. 2016. Disponível em: https://seer.ufrgs.br/EmQuestao/article/view/63251/38662 Acesso em: 20 abr. 2020.
  » https://seer.ufrgs.br/EmQuestao/article/view/63251/38662
• HICKS, Diana. The four literatures of social science. In: MOED, Henk; GLÄNZEL, Wolfgang; SCHMOCH, Ulrich. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub., 2004. p.473-496.
• HYLAND, Ken Academic discourse: english in a global context. London: Continuum, 2009.
• HYLAND, Ken; DIANI, Giuliana. Introduction. In: HYLAND, Ken; DIANI, Giuliana. (ed.). Academic evaluation: review genres in university settings. London: MacMillan, 2009.
• KOUSHA, Kayvan; THELWALL, Mike. Are Wikipedia citations importante evidence of the impact of the Scholarly articles and books? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v.68, n.3, p. 762-779, 2017.
• LAGO, Mara Coelho de Souza; WOLFF, Cristina Scheibe; MINELLA, Luzinete Simões; RAMOS, Tânia Regina Oliveira. Não soltaremos as mãos. Revista Estudos Feministas, v. 27, n.1, 2019.
• LAUDEL, Grit; GLÄSER, Jochen. Interviewing scientists. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, v.3, n. 2, p. 91-111, 2007.
• LINDHOLM-ROMANTSCHUK, Ylva. Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities: the flow of ideas within and among disciplines. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1998.
• LINS, Beatriz Accioly. A lei nas entrelinhas: a Lei Maria da Penha e o trabalho policial. São Paulo: Editora Unifesp, 2018.
• LIU, Weishu; DING, Yishan; GU, Mengdi. Book reviews in academic journals: patterns and dinamics. Scientometrics, v.110, n.1, p.355-364, 2017.
• MACHADO, Antonio. Poesías completas. 12.ed. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1969.
• MCCORKLE, Suzanne. Gender and book reviews in SCA Publications: 1980-1989. Boise: Boise State University, 1990. (Technical Report).
• MCGINTY, Stephan; MOORE, Anne. Role of gender in reviewers’ appraisals of quality in political science books: a content analysis. Journal of Academic Librarianship, v.34, n.4, p.288-294, July 2008.
• MERTON, Robert King. La sociologia de la ciencia. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1985.
• MERTON, Robert King. The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
• MOORE, Michael. Discrimination or favoritism? Sex bias in book reviews. American Psychologist, v.33, n.10, p.936-938, Oct. 1978.
• MORENO, Ana; SUÁREZ, Lorena. Managing academic conflict in English and Spanish academic book reviewing: an intercultural rethoric study. In: INTERLAE CONFERENCE, 2008, Zaragoza, 2008. [S.l.]: Proceedigns of…, 2008.
• NANOWITZ, Allen; CARLO, Paula. Evaluating review content for book selection: an analysis of American history reviews in Choice, American Historical Review, and Journal of American History. College & Research Libraries, v.58, n.4, Jul. 1997.
• NEWTON, Esther. My butch career: a memoir. Durham: Duke University Press, 2018.
• NICOLAISEN, Jeppe. The J-shaped distribution of citedness. Journal of Documentation, v.58, n.4, p.383-395, 2002a.
• NICOLAISEN, Jeppe. The scholarliness of published peer reviews: A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation, v.11, n.3, p.129-140, 2002b.
• OBENG-ODOOM, Franklin. Why write book reviews? Australian Universities’ Review, v.56, n.1, p.78-82, 2014.
• PALLARES-BURKE, Maria Lucia. As muitas faces da história: nove entrevistas. São Paulo: EdUNESP, 2000.
• PELLEGRINI, Elizabete; BOEN, Mariana Tordin. “Quem são as ‘vítimas de verdade’ nas delegacias da mulher?”. Revista Estudos Feministas, Florianópolis, v. 28, n. 3, p.1-4, 2020.
• PINI, Marcela; ARISI, Barbara Maisonnave; CARAMORI, Alessandra Paola. “La primera mujer directora de la Orquesta Filarmónica de Montevideo: entrevista con Ligia Amadio”. Revista Estudos Feministas, Florianópolis, v. 28, n. 2, p.1-12, 2020.
• PIZZANI, Luciana et al. A arte da pesquisa bibliográfica na busca do conhecimento. RDBCI: Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação, Campinas, SP, v. 10, n.2, p. 5366, jul./dez. 2012. Disponível em: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/rdbci/ article/view/1896/pdf_28 Acesso em: 20 abr. 2020.
  » https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/rdbci/ article/view/1896/pdf_28
• RAMOS, Tânia Regina; LAGO, Mara Coelho de Souza; MINELLA, Luzinete Simões. Revista Estudos Feministas: 26 anos de publicação. Revista Estudos Feministas, Florianópolis, v.26, n.2, e26021, 2018.
• REVISTA ESTUDOS FEMINISTAS (REF) Edições anteriores. 2020a. Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/ref/issue/archive Acesso em: 20 abr. 2020.
  » https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/ref/issue/archive
• REVISTA ESTUDOS FEMINISTAS (REF). Instruções aos autores. 2020b. Disponível em https://www.scielo.br/revistas/ref/pinstruc.htm Acesso em: 20 abr. 2020.
  » https://www.scielo.br/revistas/ref/pinstruc.htm
• REVISTA ESTUDOS FEMINISTAS (REF). Sobre nós. 2020c. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/revistas/ref/paboutj.htm Acesso em: 20 abr. 2020.
  » https://www.scielo.br/revistas/ref/paboutj.htm
• RIGOLIN, Camila Carneiro Dias; HAYASHI, Carlos Roberto Massao; HAYASHI, Maria Cristina Piumbato Innocentini. Métricas da participação feminina na ciência e na tecnologia no contexto dos INCTs: primeiras aproximações. Liinc em Revista, Rio de Janeiro, v.9, n.1, p.143-170, maio 2013. Disponível em: http://revista.ibict.br/liinc/article/view/3400/ 2987 Acesso em: 20 abr. 2020.
  » http://revista.ibict.br/liinc/article/view/3400/ 2987
• SABOSIK, Patricia. Scholarly review and the role of Choice in the postpublication review process. Book Research Quarterly, v.25, p.10-18, 1988.
• SALAGER-MEYER, Françoise; ARIZA, María Angéles Alcaraz; BERBESÍ, Maryelis Pabón. Collegiality, critique and construction of scientific argumentation in medical book reviews: a diachronic approch. Journal of Pragmatics, v.39, p.1758-1774, 2007.
• SANDER, Vanessa. Before and after gender: o ‘livro perdido’ de Marilyn Strathern. Revista Estudos Feministas, Florianópolis, v. 28, n. 3, e69914, p.1-4, 2020.
• SANZ, Rosa Lorés. (Non-)critical voices in the reviewing of history discourse: a crosscultural study of evaluation. In: HYLAND, Ken; DIANI, Giuliana (ed). Academic evaluation: review genres in university settings. London: Palgrav MacMillan, 2009.
• SCHEPIS, Daniel; PURCHASE, Sharon; BRENNAN, David Ross. At 21: The Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing: Book review section with an analysis of book reviews rendered: looking toward the future. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, v.22, n.12, p.125-144, 2015.
• SCHUBERT, Andras et. Quantitative analysis of a visible tip of the peer review iceberg: book reviews in Chemistry. Scientometrics, v.6, n.6, p.433-443, 1984.
• SICA, Alan. The wondrous world of online book reviewing. Contemporary Sociology, v.40, n.3, p.261-263, May. 2011.
• SILVA, Kelly Caroline da. “As freiras que resistiram: atuação de religiosas durante a ditadura militar no Brasil”. Revista Estudos Feministas, Florianópolis, v. 27, n. 3, e60625, 2019.
• SPINK, Amanda; ROBINS, David; SCHAMBER, Linda. Use of scholarly book reviews: implications for electronic publishing and scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v.49, n.4, p.364-374, 1998.
• STALLWORTHY, Mark. The review in the environmental law discourse. Journal of Environmental Law, v.25, n.3, p.547-562, 2013.
• STEPANOV, Boris. Crisis of the genre: book reviews in studies of scholarly communication. Laboratorium, v.8, n.1, p.82-106, 2016.
• STORER, Norman William. Prefatory note. In: MERTON, R. The Sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. p.281-285.
• STOWE, Steven. Thinking about reviews. The Journal of the American History, v.78, n.2, p.591-595, Sep.1991.
• TESTA, James. The book selection process for the Book Citation Index in Web of Science. 2012. Disponível em: http://wokinfo.com/media/pdf/BKCI-SelectionEssay_web.pdf Acesso em abril de 2020.
  » http://wokinfo.com/media/pdf/BKCI-SelectionEssay_web.pdf
• THELWALL, Mike. Reader and author gender and genre in Goodreads. Journal of Librarianship & Information Science, v.51, n.2, p.403-430, 2017.
• TORRES-SALINAS, Daniel et al. Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index. Scientometrics, v.98, p.2113-2127, 2014.
• TSE, Polly; HYLAND, Ken. So what is the problem this book adresses? Interactions in academic book reviews. Text & Talk, v.26, n.6, p.767-790, 2006.
• USMANI, Meena; SHRI, Madhu. Bibliometric analysis of book reviews published in Indian Journal of Gender Studies (1994-2014). International Journal of Library Information Network and Knowledge, v.1, n.1, p.1-16, Feb. 2016.
• VAN RAAN, Anthony. Measuring science: basic principles and application of advanced bibliometrics. In: GLÄNZEL, Wolfgang et al. (ed.). The Springer handbook of science and technology indicators. Cham-Switzerland: Springer, 2019. p. 237-280.
• ZUCCALA, Alesia. Quality and influence in literary work: evaluating the ‘educated imagination’. Research Evaluation, v.21, p.229-241, 2012.
• ZUCCALA, Alesia. Evaluating humanities: vitalizing the “forgotten sciences”. Research Trends, Copenhagen, v.32, p.3-6, Mar. 2013.
• ZUCCALA, Alesia; van LEEUWEN, Ted. Book reviews in humanities research evaluations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v.62, n.10, p.1979-1991, 2011.
• ZUCCALA, Alesia; BOD, Rens. Book reviews as a mega-citations: a fresh look at citation theory. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, 2012.
• WILLIAMS, Peter et al. The role and future of the monograph in arts and humanities research. Aslib Proceedings, v.61, n.1, p.67-82, 2009.

• 

  
  

• JITA:

  BB. Bibliometric methods

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  18 Sept 2023
• Date of issue
  2020

History

• Received
  02 Aug 2020
• Accepted
  26 Nov 2020
• Published
  02 Dec 2020