Search

The use of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has a series of complex impacts on academic inquiry. These systems have gradually spread into a wide range of locations and disciplines, including the humanities. The aim of this study is to examine their effects as perceived by philosophy and ethics researchers in Spain, a country where bibliometric indicators have long been used to evaluate research. The study uses a mixed approach combining quantitative and qualitative data from a self-administered questionnaire completed by 201 researchers and from 14 in-depth interviews with researchers selected according to their affiliation, professional category, gender, and area of knowledge. Results show that the evaluation system is widely perceived to affect university researchers in significant ways, particularly related to publication habits (document type and publication language), the transformation of research agendas and the neglect of teaching work, as well as increasing research misconduct and negatively affecting mental health. Although to a lesser extent, other consequences included increased research productivity and enhanced transparency and impartiality in academic selection processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rankings are presented by disciplines of Spanish scientific journals of social sciences and law according to Google Scholar (GS) for the period 2002-2011. They are sorted according to the h-index which is the Bibliometric indicator adopted by Google. Intends this work check the breadth in coverage that has Google Scholar of Spanish scientific journals of social sciences and law and compare the differences over the period 2001-2010. Bibliographic searches were conducted in the month of March 2013. H-index is calculated from 1038 journals, of which 251 are Law, 157 education, 137 economy, 109 psychology, 87 sociology, 56 political science, 54 geography, 46 anthropology, 42 sports science, 39 urban, 36 library and information science and 24 communication [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rankings are presented by disciplines of Spanish scientific journals of social sciences and law according to Google Scholar (GS) for the period 2002-2011. They are sorted according to the h-index which is the Bibliometric indicator adopted by Google. Intends this work check the breadth in coverage that has Google Scholar of Spanish scientific journals of social sciences and law and compare the differences over the period 2001-2010. Bibliographic searches were conducted in the month of March 2013. H-index is calculated from 1038 journals, of which 251 are Law, 157 education, 137 economy, 109 psychology, 87 sociology, 56 political science, 54 geography, 46 anthropology, 42 sports science, 39 urban, 36 library and information science and 24 communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study analyses the coverage of seven free‐access bibliographic databases (Crossref, Dimensions—non‐subscription version, Google Scholar, Lens, Microsoft Academic, Scilit, and Semantic Scholar) to identify the potential reasons that might cause the exclusion of scholarly documents and how they could influence coverage. To do this, 116 k randomly selected bibliographic records from Crossref were used as a baseline. API endpoints and web scraping were used to query each database. The results show that coverage differences are mainly caused by the way each service builds their databases. While classic bibliographic databases ingest almost the exact same content from Crossref (Lens and Scilit miss 0.1% and 0.2% of the records, respectively), academic search engines present lower coverage (Google Scholar does not find: 9.8%, Semantic Scholar: 10%, and Microsoft Academic: 12%). Coverage differences are mainly attributed to external factors, such as web accessibility and robot exclusion policies (39.2%–46%), and internal requirements that exclude secondary content (6.5%–11.6%). In the case of Dimensions, the only classic bibliographic database with the lowest coverage (7.6%), internal selection criteria such as the indexation of full books instead of book chapters (65%) and the exclusion of secondary content (15%) are the main motives of missing publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Who's afraid of peer review?" by J. Bohannon in the October 4, 2013 issue of the periodical.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the social construction derived from research on Film Studies in Spain in the period 1976-2007 using data extracted from the theses produced in this area. The methodology used was Social Network Analysis. Hence, two major criteria have been taken into account; the reticular composition of the panel of academics and the importance of the scholars in the network. Fixedterm networks have been created in order to study the different periods, the main social groups, and their evolution. Networks of selection of committee members per supervisor and University were also generated. Data was extracted from Spanish theses' database TESEO. Results confirm the existence of different groups generating scientific output. Most of them are related to Faculties on Communication Studies, although there are also groups in areas such as Philology, Arts or History. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bibliometric mapping and visualization techniques represent one of the main pillars in the field of scientometrics. Traditionally, the main methodologies employed for representing data are multidimensional scaling, principal component analysis, or correspondence analysis. In this paper we aim to present a visualization methodology known as biplot analysis for representing bibliometric and science and technology indicators. A biplot is a graphical representation of multivariate data, where the elements of a data matrix are represented according to dots and vectors associated with the rows and columns of the matrix. In this paper, we explore the possibilities of applying biplot analysis in the research policy area. More specifically, we first describe and introduce the reader to this methodology and secondly, we analyze its strengths and weaknesses through 3 different case studies: countries, universities, and scientific fields. For this, we use a biplot analysis known as JK-biplot. Finally, we compare the biplot representation with other multivariate analysis techniques. We conclude that biplot analysis could be a useful technique in scientometrics when studying multivariate data, as well as an easy-to-read tool for research decision makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]