**4. Conclusion**

Taking into account the described situation, there is a risk that these two fields, Social Sciences and Humanities, will be marginalized in universities around the world in the future, due to reduced (or lack of) visibility of their results in global rankings, because if the goal is to improve raking positions of the HEIs in these league tables, the rationality would concentrate efforts in the Natural Sciences, Medicine, and perhaps in Engineering. This could lead to a society with a great technological and scientific development, but "illiterate" because of the "removal" of crucial aspects of human knowledge; even more dangerous if these results are linked to funding. How to change this dark perspective?

Chemical Sciences 0.2 2.1 95.7 1.9 Biological Sciences 0.3 6.3 90.7 2.7 Medical & Health Sciences 0.3 6.3 90.5 2.9 Physical Sciences 0.1 2.65 90 7.3 Mathematical Sciences 0.7 4.3 83.8 11.2 Earth Sciences 0.9 7.7 82.2 9.2 Agriculture, Vet, Environ 0.4 5.9 79 14.7 Psychology 1.5 17.4 76.2 4.9 Law 4.1 22.1 71.9 1.69 Philosophy 6 23.8 64.8 5.4 Economics 2.9 24.5 64.5 8 Human Society 3.5 27.8 63 5.6 Journalism, Library 3.4 15.2 57.2 24.2 Education 2.5 19.3 54.5 23.6 The Arts 4.4 20.8 54.5 20.3 Management 1.3 11.7 52.9 34 Engineering 0.4 2.5 52 45.1 Language 6.5 34 51.8 7.6 History 11.6 34 50.6 3.8 Politics and Policy 5.8 37.3 46.1 10.8 Architecture 3 17.8 35.6 43.6 Computing, Ingormation Sci 0.4 4.6 32.8 62.3

Books Chapters Journal Articles

Conference Papers

Field Books

Table 5. Percentage of type of publication or format grouped by field in Scopus

these results are linked to funding. How to change this dark perspective?

in the Journal Citation Reports, are included the popular Impact Factor, the Index and Cited Immediacy Half Life and recently added the 5-year Impact Factor Eigen factor Score and Article Influence Score. Scopus delegates to various specialists the preparation of the Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), created by Professor Moed (leader team of CTWS at the University of Leiden) and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), created by Professor Moya

Taking into account the described situation, there is a risk that these two fields, Social Sciences and Humanities, will be marginalized in universities around the world in the future, due to reduced (or lack of) visibility of their results in global rankings, because if the goal is to improve raking positions of the HEIs in these league tables, the rationality would concentrate efforts in the Natural Sciences, Medicine, and perhaps in Engineering. This could lead to a society with a great technological and scientific development, but "illiterate" because of the "removal" of crucial aspects of human knowledge; even more dangerous if

So urce: Sco pus

(leader team of Scimago CSIC group).

**4. Conclusion** 

The solution is to make "more countable" the research in these fields, Social Sciences and Humanities, and to increase the visibility in the global university rankings of the so called second mission and even the third mission of the HEIs.

With respect to the measurement of the research in these fields, although there has been an increasing advance in the diffusion of results within the "scientific" standard in many of the sub-fields (economics, history or archaeology would be paradigmatic examples), some of them are still scarce. Should we change the way of spread the results giving less weight to scientific journal articles? Or should the databases providers try to capture what is being done in these fields of knowledge apart from scientific papers?

The international efforts under development (especially initiatives from the European Commission) have stimulated the transparency of HEIs activities, through the description of university performance (institutional profiles) which allows benchmarking. This transformation implies also to measure the impact of HEIs activities on many educational aspects. No longer can international rankings afford not to take into account the human capital of the new generations formed in higher education and the innovation activities of the HEIs. We must devote time and resources to these challenges.

We believe that both issues could take place simultaneously. The pressure of the need to publish ("publish or perish") in prestigious journals is becoming more intense among faculty in these fields, but at the same time requires that books and book chapters appear in the databases, in order to highlight the outstanding formats of output knowledge in Social Sciences and Humanities. Once achieved, a more realistic picture of knowledge and scientific and artistic developments that arise in the universities, it is necessary that the indicators are constructed to evaluate these outputs, to minimize the bias currently observed among different fields of knowledge. This latter aspect, more technical, is essential for legitimating of the rankings, to guarantee the neutrality of the assessments among fields (and universities). In addition, the future global rankings have to be able to catch up the diversification and differentiation among universities (and countries) designing individual institutional profiles, so prevalent on university agendas actually.
