AbstractScholarly communication in arts and humanities differs from that in the sciences. Arts and humanities scholars rely primarily on monographs as a medium of publication whereas scientists consider articles that appear in scholarly journals as the single most important publication outlet. The number of journal citation studies in arts and humanities is therefore limited. In this article, we investigate the bibliometric characteristics of 507 arts and humanities journal articles written by authors affiliated with Turkish institutions and indexed in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) between the years 1975–2003. Journal articles constituted more than 60% of all publications. One third of all contributions were published during the last 4 years (1999–2003) and appeared in 16 different journals. An overwhelming majority of contributions (91%) were written in English, and 83% of them had single authorship. Researchers based at Turkish universities produced 90% of all publications. Two thirds of references in publications were to monographs. The median age of all references was 12 years. Eighty percent of publications authored by Turkish arts and humanities scholars were not cited at all while the remaining 20% (or 99 publications) were cited 304 times (an average of three citations per publication). Self‐citation ratio was 31%. Two thirds of the cited publications were cited for the first time within 2 years of their publications.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the effectiveness and outcomes of liberal arts in preparing people for adult roles. Design/methodology/approach – Review of research and opinions about the liberal arts. Findings – Liberal-arts outcomes results have fallen short of expectations though this may be a short coming of higher education generally. A new era of the knowledge society will shrink liberal-arts departments in humanities, literature and philosophy. Research limitations/implications – Liberal arts need definition and clarity of expected outcomes. Practical implications – Jobs in liberal arts colleges will decrease given its weak effectiveness. Online education for liberal-arts areas will grow explosively. Originality/value – Liberal-arts critics have been active for decades. What is different today is world wide access to all information 24/7 and massive open online courses (MOOCs).

In the last decade, the science of complex networks [1] experienced a remarkable success story, driven by never-before-seen amounts of data and an ever-increasing interest in understanding complex properties and dynamics. More and more physicists, computer scientists, engineers, mathematicians, biologists, economists and social scientists are tackling similar problems with methods borrowed from each other or, increasingly, developed by teams working across disciplines. The Leonardo satellite symposium Arts | Humanities | Complex Networks, at NetSci2010 (Boston, 10 May 2010), strives to expand and foster cross-disciplinary research on complex networks within, or with the help of, arts and humanities. Up to this point arts and humanities have usually not been included in the list of relevant disciplines featured in the standard network science literature. Given the wealth of arts and humanities data, as well as the growing role of visualization and other perceptualizations in network science, we are sure that lessons can be learned by network scientists as well as specialists in arts and humanities. The study of networks and network visualizations complement each other, as studying the represented always presupposes the study of representation. Network science can help to explore complex structures and dynamics in areas ranging from literature, art and archaeology to music, film and image science. At the same time, specialists from the arts and humanities can help to develop visualizations and other perceptualizations using expertise that draws on a broad historical corpus of works. Beyond that, other collaborative intersections can certainly be identified and explored. The convergence of arts, humanities and network science has the potential to bring new insights and foster knowledge that none of these fields can achieve on their own. We find complex network structure wherever we look in the arts and humanities, including bibliographies, museum inventories and research databases. Every conceivable link relation in these datasets forms a complex network in a larger “network of networks” between objects, people, places, times, events and concepts [2]. Interesting sub-networks in the arts and humanities include multimodal networks of features and metadata in art, film and literature; implicit citation and the transmission of motifs (including Aby Warburg’s Mnemosyne); as well as networks of cultural exchange and trade, from the Neolithic to modern supply chains. Relevant network dynamics include the emergence and evolution of canons in art, music, literature and film, as well as the evolution of communities of practice in art and science. Dealing with the growing role of data visualization, network researchers benefit from cross-disciplinary collaboration. Ten years ago, leading protagonists of network science and information visualization pointed out that, visualizing a complex network, one should be able to reduce it to a simple tree or one should not try it at all, pointing to the alternative of pure numerical measures. Since then, an impressive number of examples, driven by increasing processing power and new layout methods, continue to disprove this opinion. Scientists develop new ways of visualization, such as “edge bundling,” that bring more clarity to complex network structure. Artists have developed convenient visualization tools, such as the Processing programming language, benefitting not only fellow artists but also increasingly the sciences. And humanities researchers are using tools from cell biology such as Cytoscape, visualizing their own complex network data. As a part of NetSci2010, Arts | Humanities | Complex Networks will foster interdisciplinary communication and collaboration, effectively adding arts and humanities to the expanding list of fields associated with complex network research. We will be happy to present the results in a forthcoming issue of Leonardo.

We should not define the “uses” of the arts and humanities against the sciences. Nor, in our finite world, should we resist asking what their uses are. The long perspective of science helps us see that art, which might seem the most useless of all major forms of human activity, can reshape minds and societies by its very freedom from immediate use. Fiction in particular has led to an expansion in sympathy and a decline in social harm, and like all the arts prompts the imagination to envisage richer purposes in a richer world. Given that we need to imitate in order to innovate, the arts and the humanities, as seedbanks of the human past, make a world of difference. In our ultrasocial species, our arts, our sciences, our societies are humanities, all the way down. If we currently section off science, medicine, engineering, architecture, economics, and fine arts, even these specialisms are also all humanities, the product of human action, thought, inquiry, accumulation, contestation and preservation. In the core humanities, where we examine what we humans think and do, have thought and done, and might think and do, we need to focus more on creative problem-solving in the past and how that can help engender creativity in the present and future. At their best the arts and the humanities, like the best science, critique themselves, both building on and challenging what has gone before. A poem by Szymborska and a novel by Nabokov show how creativity and critique, by exploring the possibility beyond the actual, help extend what is actually possible.

The use of numbers (publications and citations) to evaluate research/er performances are widespread since ease of use. However, disciplinary differences must be considered to evaluate research/ers accurately without misjudgments in tenures and incentives. The most different filed from others in terms of publications and citation patterns is Arts & Humanities. The main aim of this study is to reveal the main differences between Arts & Humanities and the other fields by considering publications, citations, and collaboration. For this aim, the main statistics for 59,728,700 papers published between 1980-2018 are gathered from InCites in terms of the 251 Web of Science subject categories. The data confirmed that Arts & Humanities is considerably different from other fields. We showed the degree of these differences using statistical measures. The huge difference found out that underline the indispensability for evaluating Arts & Humanities separately from the others.

The case studies in this book illuminate how arts and humanities tropes can aid in contextualizing Digital Arts and Humanities, Neogeographic and Social Media activity and data through the creation interpretive schemas to study interactions between visualizations, language, human behaviour, time and place.

The humanities - an introduction what is a work of art? being a critic of the arts painting sculpture architecture literature drama music dance the film photography the interrelationships of the humanities.