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

A proposal for a qualitative classification of scientific journals specialized in social sciences and humanities is presented. The main objective of CIRC (in Spanish, Clasificación integrada de revistas científicas) is to become a tool to obtain bibliometrics indicators for different levels of aggregation based on the quality of publications. The ranking is the result of consensus of experts in the field of bibliometrics and research evaluation. The resulting classification consists of four groups of journals (gA, gB, gC, gD) configured according to the visibility of the journals; a fifth group of excellence was created with the most relevant journals (gEx). To create groups and determine quality of the journals, various lists and databases referenced in Cneai and Aneca standards were used. Finally, we illustrate the use of CIRC applying it to the scientific production of the departments of Social Sciences at the University of Granada.

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

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

A PESAR DEL TIEMPO TRANSCURRIDO, el ranking, sea cual fuere su naturaleza, sigue siendo la herramienta preferida para analizar comparativamente todo tipo de instituciones científicas. Producción, citación, recursos humanos, recursos financieros, páginas web, todo es susceptible de ser utilizado para crear estos listados ponderados que solemos identificar bajo este anglicismo tan extendido. En nuestro grupo de investigación, y con el fin de no desentonar de la tendencia general, hemos creado uno que hemos dado en llamar RI3 (léase “erre-i-cubo”), el Ranking de instituciones de investigación iberoamericanas.

Abstract

El presente artículo analiza la relevancia de los motivos visuales como nuevas herramientas de investigación en cine y comunicación audiovisual, mediante un meta-análisis cuantitativo de dos bases de datos críticas: el ranking de las mejores películas de la historia publicado por el British Film Institute en 2012 y la Enciclopedia Motivos visuales del cine (un proyecto colaborativo de hasta sesenta investigadores y críticos). El primero se utiliza como indicador de valores canónicos de la historiografía cinematográfica, mientras el segundo representa un nuevo acercamiento al cine desde metodologías menos jerárquicas y autorales. Se cuantifican y comparan tres variables estratégicas (décadas, géneros, cineastas), que confirman un nivel de concordancia bajo entre las películas más significativas de ambas bases de datos, y apuntan diferencias notables en cuanto a la perspectiva histórica, los valores de alta y baja cultura y la autoría fílmica. AbstractThis paper assesses the importance of visual motifs as new research tools for film and media studies, by running a quantitative meta-study of two expert review databases: the British Film Institute best-movies 2012 poll and the Encyclopedia of visual motifs in cinema (a joint venture of up to sixty researchers and film critics). The former is used as an indicator of canonic values in film historiography, while the latter represents a new approach to cinema from a less hierarchical and nonauteur- oriented methodology. Three main variables are quantified and compared (decades, genres, directors), pointing to a low accordance between the top films of both databases, as well as to noteworthy differences in terms of historical scope, high / low culture values, and authorship.

Abstract

The lack of an integrated information policy for scientific activity evaluation has led to a wide range of information products and services that are used for such purposes, although they were not originally designed for that. While it is true that these tools have limitations and deficiencies, and in several cases are technologically and methodologically obsolete, possibly the biggest problem is sustainability in the present times of economic crisis, especially if they do not take on new strategic tasks, such as assessment, which is a priority today. Various products are reviewed in this critical essay: scientific journal portals, with the recommendation to implement value added systems like SciELO instead of simple database management; current databases on offer, with questions about having national products without metrics; institutional repositories, with the observation that they have forgotten to serve authors, their real end users; and institutional ranking systems, suggesting that some have not learned from the successes of those based on composite indicators. Recommendations include institutional coordination of services; professionalism versus incompetence; and an end to the economic drain caused both by licensing underused databases and by maintaining outdated policies based on criteria that have been abandoned at the international level.

Abstract

The aim of this article is to analyze the web positioning factors that can influence the order, by relevance, in Google Scholar and the subsequent evaluation of the importance of received citations in this ordering process. The methodology of reverse engineering was applied, in which a comparison was made between the Google Scholar ranking and another ranking consisting of only the number of citations received by documents. This investigation was conducted employing four types of searches without the use of keywords: by publication, year, author, and “cited by”. The results were matched in the four samples with correlation coefficients between the two highest rankings, which exceeded 0.9. The present study demonstrates more clearly than in previous research how citations are the most relevant off-page feature in the ranking of search results on Google Scholar. The other features have minimal influence. This information provides a solid basis for the academic search engine optimization (ASEO) discipline. We also developed a new analysis procedure for isolating off-page features that might be of practical use in forthcoming investigations.

Abstract

Secaba-Rank is an online tool that includes Secaba-Rank Universitarias and Secaba-Rank Publicas, which can be used to evaluate both Spanish university libraries and public reading networks. Using a systemic approach, the methodology makes use of second level indicators focused on efficiency. This methodology facilitates the benchmarking of libraries to find models of good practice in order to improve. Secaba-Rank is an essential tool for decision making by researchers and managers in libraries.