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]

Pay to publish and open access have been studied extensively, but less so in disciplines such as philosophy and ethics. This study examines the habits and perceptions of researchers from these two fields in Spain. The study draws on data from a survey (completed by 201 out of 541 researchers), a public debate with 26 researchers, and 14 in‐depth interviews. Our results offer some interesting insights into the criteria researchers apply when selecting publishers and journals, notably the value they place on the absence of publication fees. However, habits differ for publishing an article or a book, since payment to publish books is more widespread. The study finds contrasting views on the market for publishing books and journals: some respondents perceived what they consider to be the commercialisation of publishing in academic journals, while others provide arguments to support the Spanish book industry. Sceptical views were also voiced on pay to publish as a funding model. Finally, the study finds broad agreement among the researchers surveyed that publicly funded research should be free to read. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00309-6 [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]

Study of the origins, philosophy and history of the criteria used to assess research activities in Spain by the CNEAI. The assessment criteria and quality evidence of publications is discussed. Results are presented on the temporal development of the criteria used, grouped by publication type (articles and books) and fields of knowledge. Between 1989-1996, assessment was based on the definition and goals set by the Spanish scientific framework and on general criteria. Between 1996-2004, the formulation of indicators began to be almost exclusively based on Journal Citation Reorts (JCR). Success rates up to 2004 indicate that the evaluation criteria and publishing behaviour matched the «hard sciences», but not the Social Sciences and Economics. In 2005, the criteria used were further developed and reoriented with an eye to softening the preceding JCR-centrism by taking into consideration other databases and defining the quality criteria to be met by journals, books and conferences not included in JCR. Correspondingly, the success rates for 2007 indicate a dramatic recovery in Economics. In the last 4 years, Humanities and Social Sciences have consolidated the further opening of the criteria used with the addition of new benchmarks and the full integration of books. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The state of the Spanish LIS profession and specialities in 2002 is reviewed. Statistical data is provided about both the number and type of Spanish libraries and archives as well as of practising professionals, according to geographic distribution, training and job description. Spanish library and information authorities are identified as well as professional associations and learned societies and conferences held. University education is also examined with descriptions of existing institutions, degree levels and data on student enrolment and teachers. The primary media for professional communication are described, in particular publishers, bulletins, scientific journals and electronic fora. Publishing output is quantified: books, journal articles, and conference papers both at national and international levels. Finally, research in the field is analysed through the total of Ph. D. dissertations presented, research articles published and research projects funded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resumen: Tras presentar los rasgos característicos de las revistascientíficas españolas de ciencias de la documentación,se analiza su calidad informativa como medios de comunicación y lacalidad de su proceso editorial. El perfil característico de la revistaespañola en Ciencias de la Documentación es el de una revistajoven, auspiciada por una asociación profesional o un centro universitariode biblioteconomía y documentación, publicada en Madrid, deperiodicidad amplia (anual/semestral), de cobertura, alcance y públicogeneral, con una estructura editorial consolidada pero no profesionalizada,de tamaño mediano, de procedencia local y filiación preferentementeacadémica. En general, las revistas españolas del áreano se ajustan a las ormas internacionales de publicación científica.Las principales deficiencias son: no contar con instrucciones a autores detalladas,no suministrar información sobre el proceso de evaluación yselección de manuscritos, no traducir títulos, resúmenesy palabras clave, no incluir fechas de recepción, aceptacióny publicación de los originales. El proceso editorial presenta importanteslagunas por cuanto que no se cumplen estrictamente los plazos de publicación,no se respetan las propias instrucciones a autores de la revista, no existeun sistema de revisión y evaluación de manuscritos mínimamenteriguroso, no se aplica un sistema de control, auditoría y autoevaluaciónde la revista, encontrándose la gestión del proceso editorialmuy poco profesionalizada. Se concluye ofreciendo una serie de medidas concretasque conduzcan a su mejora. Title: Spanish library and information science journals: evaluation andsuggestions for improvement.Abstract: After presenting themain features of Spanish library and information science journals, an analysisis offered of their... [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 that relates to the fate of the manuscripts submitted by the authors which has been rejected by the publishers for publications.

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.

ResearchGate is currently one of the most important academic social networks, with more than 9 million users and 80 million documents. The platform offers not only important academic networking tools and job vacancies but also a wide range of bibliometric indicators. The objective of this work is to discuss the main advantages and disadvantages of these indicators paying special attention to the RG Score, the ResearchGate's flagship indicator. Although ResearchGate provides features and bibliometric indicators of enormous potential in order to gather additional insights about the scientific and academic impact of authors' production, their communication policies and some recent actions taken in the design, development, and dissemination of indicators generate serious doubts regarding their use for evaluation purposes. Finally, regarding the RG Score indicator, we conclude that it does not measure the prestige of researchers, but instead their level of participation in the platform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Purpose-Google Scholar Citations (GSC) provides an institutional affiliation link which groups together authors who belong to the same institution. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain whether this feature is able to identify and normalize all the institutions entered by the authors, and whether it is able to assign all researchers to their own institution correctly. Design/methodology/approach-Systematic queries to GSC's internal search box were performed under two different forms (institution name and institutional e-mail web domain) in September 2015. The whole Spanish academic system (82 institutions) was used as a test. Additionally, specific searches to companies (Google) and world-class universities were performed to identify and classify potential errors in the functioning of the feature. Findings-Although the affiliation tool works well for most institutions, it is unable to detect all existing institutions in the database, and it is not always able to create a unique standardized entry for each institution. Additionally, it also fails to group all the authors who belong to the same institution. A wide variety of errors have been identified and classified. Research limitations/implications-Even though the analyzed sample is good enough to empirically answer the research questions initially proposed, a more comprehensive study should be performed to calibrate the real volume of the errors. Practical implications-The discovered affiliation link errors prevent institutions from being able to access the profiles of all their respective authors using the institutions lists offered by GSC. Additionally, it introduces a shortcoming in the navigation features of Google Scholar which may impair web user experience. Social implications-Some institutions (mainly universities) are under-represented in the affiliation feature provided by GSC. This fact might jeopardize the visibility of institutions as well as the use of this feature in bibliometric or webometric analyses. Originality/value-This work proves inconsistencies in the affiliation feature provided by GSC. A whole national university system is systematically analyzed and several queries have been used to reveal errors in its functioning. The completeness of the errors identified and the empirical data examined are the most exhaustive to date regarding this topic. Finally, some recommendations about how to correctly fill in the affiliation data (both for authors and institutions) and how to improve this feature are provided as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose -- The purpose of this paper is to describe the obsolescence process of Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) as well as the effects of this decline in the coverage of disciplines and journals, and their influence in the representativeness of organizations. Design/methodology/approach -- The total number of records and those belonging to the most reputable journals (1,762) and organizations (346) according to the Field Rating indicator in each of the 15 fields and 204 sub-fields of MAS, have been collected and statistically analysed in March 2014, by means of an automated querying process via http, covering academic publications from 1700 to present. Findings -- MAS has no longer been updated since 2013, although this phenomenon began to be glimpsed in 2011, when its coverage plummeted. Throughout 2014, indexing of new records is still ongoing, but at a minimum rate, without following any apparent pattern. Research limitations/implications -- There are also retrospective records being indexed at present. In this sense, this research provides a picture of what MAS offered during March 2014 being queried directly via http. Practical implications -- The unnoticed obsolescence of MAS affects to the quality of the service offered to its users (both those who engage in scientific information seeking and also those who use it for quantitative purposes). Social implications -- The predominance of Google Scholar (GS) as monopoly in the academic search engines market as well as the prevalence of an open construction model (GS) vs a closed model (MAS). Originality/value -- A complete longitudinal analysis of disciplines, journals and organizations on MAS has been performed for the first time identifying an unnoticed obsolescence. Any public explanation or disclaimer note has been announced from the responsible company, something incomprehensible given its implications for the reliability and validity of bibliometric data provided on disciplines, journals, authors and congress as well as their fair representation on the academic search engine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – The aim of this study is to analyse the disciplinary coverage of Thomson Reuters' Book Citation Index database focusing on publisher presence, impact and specialisation. Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted a descriptive study in which they examined coverage by discipline, publisher distribution by field and country of publication, and publisher impact. For this purpose the Thomson Reuters' subject categories were aggregated into 15 disciplines. Findings – Humanities and social sciences comprise 30 per cent of the total share of this database. Most of the disciplines are covered by very few publishers mainly from the UK and USA (75.05 per cent of the books), in fact 33 publishers hold 90 per cent of the whole share. Regarding publisher impact, 80.5 per cent of the books and chapters remained uncited. Two serious errors were found in this database: the Book Citation Index does not retrieve all citations for books and chapters; and book citations do not include citations to their chapters. Originality/value – There are currently no studies analysing in depth the coverage of this novel database which covers monographs. [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]

A metric analysis of blogs on library and information science (LIS) between November 2006 and June 2009 indexed on the Libworm search engine characterizes the community's behavior quantitatively. An analysis of 1108 personal and corporate blogs with a total of 275,103 posts is used to calculate survival rate, production (number of posts published), and visibility via such indicators as links received, Technorati authority, and Google's PagePank. Over the study period, there was a 52% decrease in the number of active blogs. Despite the drop in production over this period, the average number of posts per blog remained constant (14 per month). The most representative blogs in the discipline are identified. The emergence of such platforms as Facebook and Twitter seems to have meant that both personal and corporate blogs have lost some of their prominence. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]