Abstract

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) not only criticizes the misuse of Garfield’s impact factor as a tool for the evaluation of scientific activity, but implicitly questions citation analysis in particular and bibliometric practice in general. The work of the professional bibliometric community is defended, identifying technical errors and commercial practices of the companies providing bibliometric data, which are largely responsible for the structural problems, while warning of a conjunctural situation that results from the generalization of “easy bibliometrics”. This situation should be corrected with a future statement of good practice now under development by a group of bibliometrists.

Abstract

We present and discuss some differential aspects of scientific publications on mathematics in relation to other sciences. This discipline should be treated as a distinct case from the point of view of bibliometrics, information science, and productivity assessment of mathematics researchers.

Abstract

With the launch of the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Thomson Reuters has created a set of expectations. The Web of Science has become the most comprehensive research platform of journal evaluation. ESCI acts as the waiting room before Thomson technicians check whether journals meet the quality requirements to be indexed in the Science Citation Index (SCI), Social SCI, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index databases. ESCI is characterized by its multidisciplinary coverage and its increase in geographic coverage, now reaching non Anglo-Saxon countries. ESCI increases Thomas Reuters range without sacrificing the quality of its reference products. In addition, it contributes to the transparency of the evaluation and selection process.

Abstract

The use of the impact factor has evolved and it has become the indicator to measure not only the quality of journals but also of authors and research groups, provoking strong reactions from publishers, researchers, librarians and evaluation committees. This paper presents a reflection about the relationship between strategies and business decisions of private companies (such as Elsevier and Thomson Reuters) and the Spanish system of evaluating scientific activity.

Abstract

The evaluation of scientific journals with bibliometric indicators has been dominated by the Impact factor since the 70s. However Thomson has recently included in the Journal Citation Reports the Eigen factor and the Article influence score. On the other hand Elsevier has included in Scopus the Source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) and the SCImago journal rank (SJR). In this paper we introduce and describe these indicators. Secondly, to study the similarities we analyze correlations of the traditional indicators and the new ones, detailing the results across 27 scientific fields. It was noted that some couples of indicators such as Eigen- Citations, Impact factor-ArticleScore, Impact factor–SJR and SJR-ArticleScore do correlate in many areas. Correlations showed different trends in Science and Social science; therefore, in the last section we discuss the need to take into account the scientific area when selecting an indicator.

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

This is a kind of conceptual document, and at the same time a reflection, but also something more, an act of provocation in the form of a piece of theater that shows a reality, something dramatic and comical at the same time, as is the panorama ofour research. It also includes a good portion of humor, but the kind of humor the great writer and thinker Luigi Pirandello defined as „the one that does not provoke the immediate laughter, but only pulls a smile behind which hides the bitter taste of the absurd or the unbearable lightness of our existence.“ This piece of theater, short and concise so as not to bore anyone, narrates the efforts that are required daily, as well as the situations created, to carry out the task –which is perhaps a utopia- of trying to measure something that is incommensurable, as is science on the part of those who are dedicated to its evaluation or to the study of its development. In this comedy, all actors involved, both protagonists and the indicators themselves, have the opportunity to present their hopes and fears, their merits and their complaints, their recommendations and warnings. They narrate the search for a path in a jungle in which the world of information has been converted, that is practicable, augurs a promising future for science, and allows us a more just interpretation.

Abstract

This work discusses the current debate between the use of qualitative approaches versus the use of quantitative indicators in research evaluation. It argues that too much importance is currently given to the methods and criteria employed in evaluation instead of discussing the most essential issue: the goal that evaluation pursues and how different research activities are valued. To finish, some design problems of the Spanish research evaluation system are highlighted because those problems act as a barrier towards a more contextualized and responsible evaluation system.