Purpose: The humanities possess a unique nature compared to other science disciplines, necessitating a distinct approach to evaluating their research outputs. By analyzing the status and evolution of the evaluation components within the humanities, the primary and secondary topics, as well as their historical transformations, can be clearly identified. This analysis reveals the strengths and weaknesses of current evaluation practices, offering a foundation for more focused research and informed policy-making in the future. Therefore, this study aims to identify and comprehensively analyze the concepts related to the evaluating humanities research research outputs, thereby supporting researchers and policymakers in the field of humanities evaluation. Methodology: This research is practical in purpose and employs biblio-metric techniques. To conduct the study, articles indexed in Web of Science and Scopus related to the evaluation of humanities research (1994– 2022) were retrieved using specific objectives and search strategies. The search strategy included the following terms: ("research output" OR "scientific output") AND (humanities OR "human sciences AND (evaluation OR assessment). A total of 224 sources were selected to analysis. Following data storage and cleaning, the analysis was performed using the Bibliometrix software.Tthe two-word keywords were selected to investigation, as they contained more relevant and precise concepts compared to other keyword types. A threshold of at least six repetitions per keyword was applied, resulting in 224 keywords for analysis. Various analytical methods, including descriptive statistics, co-word analysis, network analysis, time series analysis, thematic mapping, and clustering, were employed for data analysis based on each research question. Findings: Based on the findings, the publication of papers evaluating humanities research outputs has shown an upward trend, progressing in tandem with other fields. The number of articles increased from 1 in 1994 to 45 in 2020, underscoring the significant growth of evaluation practices in the humanities in recent years. The concepts and thematic areas indicate that the evaluation methods employed in the early years were predominantly quantitative, often borrowing techniques from other sciences disciplines. However, recent trends reveal the emergence of core and widely used keywords such as effect evaluation, citation effect, Performance index, bibliography, scientific communication, research impact, and social impact. These keywords reflect a shift from a purely quantitative approach to a more integrated framework that combines both quantitative and qualitative methods. An analysis of the time series of concepts reveals that the citation index has grown significantly in the humanities sciences since 2005. While bibliometric indicators have been in use since 2002, the assessment of research impact has gained prominence more recently, particularly since 2013. Notably, metrics related to social impact and research quality shown substantial significant improvements, reflecting a shift from a focus on quantity to an emphasis on quality. Central to the field are the concepts of citation index, research performance, and research impact. The concepts of citation index, impact assessment, and journal article are among the most frequently used keywords in the field. Based on the reviewed articles, the knowledge structure of humanities evaluation comprises five clusters: 1. impact assessment, 2. citation index, 3. journal articles, 4. research performance, and 5. research articles. Among these, the impact assessment cluster contains the most concepts, the research performance cluster exhibits the highest centrality, and the research article cluster demonstrates the greatest density. The thematic map the field highlights key concepts such as research performance, bibliometric indicators, journal articles, and publication patterns. Fundamental concepts include research articles and evaluation systems, while research quality emerges as a growing area of interest. Notably, the citation index and bibliometric analysis are well-developed yet distinct concepts within the field. Conclusion: Given the significance of the human sciences, continuous evaluation is essential to enhance their standing and achieve their objectives. However, it is crucial to recognize the distinctions between the humanities and other sciences, particularly in terms of their nature and the methods used for evaluation. Therefore, when evaluating the human sciences, it is vital to employ appropriate concepts, and identifying these concepts through an analysis of existing research is key to effective research and policy-making in this field. The evaluation of humanities research outputs is dynamic and constantly evolving. As a result, stake-holders must consistently update their knowledge and practices to remain aligned with these changes. © 2025, Shahed University. All rights reserved.
