Abstract

The update of the ISI rankings of Spanish universities according to fields and scientific disciplines (2nd ed. 2011)  is presented. Specifically, in this second edition we focus on the inclusion of 19 new scientific disciplines and the creation of a dynamic new website. Various bibliometric analyses of the different rankings are also shown. Firstly, the updated data for the rankings on 12 scientific fields for the 2006-2010 period are presented focusing on the changes in the positions compared to the 2005-2009 period. Secondly, we present the results in the scientific disciplines during the 2006-2010 period, on the one hand for the Spanish university system as a whole, and on the other hand showing the major universities in 19 new disciplines. Finally we conclude that the 2nd edition of the ISI Rankings improves the global analysis of strengths and weaknesses in the Spanish higher education system and more precisely profiles the performance of Spanish universities in more specific areas.

Abstract

Analysis of the citations received by the journal El profesional de la información (EPI) according to the databases ISI Science Citation Index (WoS) from Thomson Reuters, and Scopus from Elsevier, which index the journal since 2006. There are three main groups (or themes) recognized, that potentially can generate citations: bibliometrics, medicine, and library and information science in Spanish.

Abstract

The “ISI rankings  of the spanish universities by scientific fields” report is described, and some of the results are presented. One of the essential characteristics of this new ranking, based on Thomson-Reuters products, is its organization into 12 fields of knowledge. The IFQ2A-Index indicator was used to sort the universities, synthesizing information from 6 bibliometric indicators. The results section presents some total indicators for the Spanish university system, showing a steady growth of scientific production but almost no change in the visibility of the journals. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of the results shows the dominance of Catalan universities in the 12 fields of knowledge analyzed during the period 2005-2009.

Abstract

The possible use of h-index in the evaluation of individual researchers has raised great concern among policymakers and scientists themselves. Research is needed to determine the advantages and limitations of this new indicator. A study of publications in the Web of Science, 1994-2004, applied the h-index to researchers working in the natural resources area at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). One of the findings presented is that the h-index detected the most outstanding scientists; however, scientists who follow a selective publication strategy, publishing a relatively low number of documents that are frequently cited, could be penalized for this approach in h-index based evaluations. The authors emphasize the need to avoid the specific limitations of each indicator by combining indicators in the evaluation process.

Abstract

La astronomía es una ciencia natural que atrae un importante interés del público. A una escala humana, la mayoría de los objetos celestes individuales son esencialmente inmutables, pero ¿ocurre lo mismo con el interés por la investigación astronómica? Este artículo utiliza la popular enciclopedia online Wikipedia como un proxy del interés público en la investigación académica y evalúa el grado en que se citan artículos de astronomía y astrofísica publicados entre 1996 y 2014. Se hicieron búsquedas automáticas en Webometric Analyst a través de Bing para contar el número de citas a artículos de astronomía y astrofísica desde la Wikipedia. Los resultados muestran que los papers más antiguos, de antes de 2008, tienen menos probabilidades de ser citados. Esto es cierto en general y en la mayoría de las principales versiones lingüísticas de Wikipedia, aunque puede reflejar los intereses de los editores en lugar de los intereses del público. Esto concuerda con una tendencia moderada hacia la obsolescencia en el interés público en la investigación, aunque es probable que el fenómeno esté influido por las fechas en las que se creó la mayoría del contenido de Wikipedia sobre ese tema. Los artículos pueden llegar a ser obsoletos si presentan la evidencia de que más tarde fueron sustituidos por otros con datos mejorados o si proponen un modelo que luego se reemplazó. AbstractAstronomy is a natural science attracting substantial public interest. On a human scale, most individual celestial objects are essentially unchanging but is the same true for interest in astronomy research? This article uses the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia as a proxy for public interest in academic research and assesses the extent to which it cites astronomy and astrophysics articles published between 1996 and 2014. Automatic Bing searches in Webometric Analyst were used to count the number of citations to astronomy and astrophysics articles from Wikipedia. The results show that older papers from before 2008 are increasingly less likely to be cited. This is true overall and in most of the major language versions of Wikipedia, although it may reflect editors’ interests rather than the public’s interests. This is consistent with a moderate tendency towards obsolescence in public interest in research, although it is probably affected by the dates on which most Wikipedia content on the topic was created. Papers may become obsolete if they report evidence that are later superseded by improved data or if they propose a model that is later replaced.

Abstract

Se muestra cómo se puede implementar la evaluación bibliométrica a nivel individual, lo que se ha hecho con éxito en la Universidad de Viena, a cargo del Departamento Bibliometría y Estrategias de Publicación de la Biblioteca. De acuerdo con la filosofía del Departamento, la bibliometría no es más que un instrumento de evaluación útil con el fin de complementar el sistema de revisión por pares. También se entiende como una brújula para los investigadores en el dilema “publicar o perecer” con el fin de aumentar su visibilidad y para optimizar las estrategias de publicación. La evaluación individual se compone de una entrevista con el investigador evaluado, de la elaboración de un informe bibliométrico de las publicaciones del investigador, de una reunión y de una validación de los resultados obtenidos con el investigador, así como análisis adicionales opcionales. El informe bibliométrico se entrega al investigador, pues así éste conoce los aspectos cuantitativos de los resultados de su investigación. Adicionalmente, también se utiliza como base para discutir con él sus estrategias de publicación. Eventualmente, tal informe sirve para realizar la revisión por pares del investigador con más conocimiento de causa, y por lo tanto se reenvía a Aseguramiento de la calidad, a la oficina del Rector y finalmente a los pares. La característica más importante del informe bibliométrico es su carácter multidimensional e individual. Se fundamenta en varios indicadores básicos y otros parámetros de control con el fin de mejorar la interpretación. Tanto los investigadores, como el personal administrativo y los evaluadores han confirmado la utilidad de este enfoque bibliométrico, por lo que se ha producido una creciente demanda de los mismos. Hasta el momento se han entregado 33. Por otra parte, también se han realizado con gran éxito informes similares para la evaluación bibliométrica de dos facultades. AbstractThis paper shows how bibliometric assessment can be implemented at individual level. This has been successfully done at the University of Vienna carried out by the Department for Bibliometrics and Publication Strategies of the Vienna University Library. According to the department’s philosophy, bibliometrics is not only a helpful evaluation instrument in order to complement the peer review system. It is also meant as a compass for researchers in the ‘publish or perish’ dilemma in order to increase general visibility and to optimize publication strategies. The individual assessment comprises of an interview with the researcher under evaluation, the elaboration of a bibliometric report of the researcher’s publication output, the discussion and validation of the obtained results with the researcher under evaluation as well as further optional analyses. The produced bibliometric reports are provided to the researchers themselves and inform them about the quantitative aspects of their research output. They also serve as a basis for further discussion concerning their publication strategies. These reports are eventually intended for informed peer review practices, and are therefore forwarded to the quality assurance and the Rector’s office and finally sent to the peers. The most important feature of the generated bibliometric report is its multidimensional and individual character. It relies on a variety of basic indicators and further control parameters in order to foster comprehensibility. Researchers, administrative staff and peers alike have confirmed the usefulness of this bibliometric approach. An increasing demand is noticeable. In total, 33 bibliometric reports have been delivered so far. Moreover, similar reports have also been produced for the bibliometric assessment of two faculties with great success.

Abstract

Altmetrics measure the impact of research by quantifying its presence on the social web. The use of this tool in research evaluation can supplement citation analysis. However, altmetric data sources suffer from biases similar to those of citation databases. Although altmetrics offer article-level metrics, it is necessary to normalize data collection in order to guarantee the consistency of altmetric indicators and to build a conceptual framework to interpret them. Altmetrics can be a source of information on researchers’ information behaviour and needs.