Abstract

Some negative consequences of the criteria for evaluating research production of Spanish scholars are described. The prevalence of the Journal citation reports impact factor is harmful for the scientific publications of Spanish publishers, limits the open access policies of university publishers and university libraries, and excludes research activities of numerous areas of social sciences and humanities.

Abstract

After an overview of the changes that are taking place in the world of bibliographic databases used for scientific search and evaluation, this work describes the free version of Dimensions (bibliographic database produced by Digital Science and launched in January 2018). As a first step, a sketch is made of its main characteristics, operations, and features. We conclude that Dimensions is an interesting alternative for the search of scientific information, as well as for the analysis of citations, because it is able to compete with both Scopus (greater coverage and also free of charge) and Google scholar (greater functionalities for the treatment and export of data). Therefore, it is a hybrid product halfway between the classic bibliographic databases and the modern academic search engines.

Abstract

The relationships between politics and scientists of interest in the findings of bibliometric studies are discussed in this text. The use of bibliometric arguments by commissions such as Cneai (Comisión Nacional de Evaluación de la Actividad Investigadora), among others, in the process of making decisions on “sections of research” and aspects of science policy, constitute a discussion of undoubted importance and interest to information professionals.

Abstract

Scientific repositories are playing a significant role in scholarly communication, mostly due to the success of open access initiatives. Quantitative indicators to describe their contents and evaluate their usage and impact have been developed. The Ranking Web of repositories is introduced as a webometrics tool to rank the top 200 academic repositories, including both thematic and institutional ones.

Abstract

Evaluation of scientific journals in Spain and abroad is at the peak of attention. There are several journal evaluation systems but there are few relations among them. They cover quality indicators interesting for editors, researchers and evaluators but, how are these groups really affected? On the one hand, researchers from other areas are obliged to know some concepts and terms from Bibliometrics or Information Science. That makes it possible to develop a certain “users training” as well as releasing one of the aspects of Documentation. On the other hand, some researchers engaged with scientific journals as editors or members of the editorial or advisory board express their critical opinion related to some systems or indicators and from their discussions we obtain ideas to improve the evaluation systems. Finally, editors visit these information systems to see how they have been evaluated but are not sure to which system to pay attention. A general conclusion could be obtained: research about journal quality has impact: a social impact.

Abstract

Publishers of scholarly books about library and information science and communications are analyzed, as well as their publishing processes. The research method was a questionnaire sent to 263 Spanish researchers and teachers in these areas. The survey response rate was 35.5%. Thanks to these responses, main quality indicators for publishers were identified. Researchers’ working habits, opinions and attitudes related to the selection, editing and publishing processes of their books are also examined. Finally, as a more pragmatic result, the most prestigious Spanish and foreign publishers are identified.

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

In 2011, the research programmes for Support and accreditation of Severo Ochoa Centers of Excellence and Units of Excellence María de Maeztu were launched for the first time. Since then, these accreditations have become one of the axes of the Spanish scientific policy. In these years, € 186 million have been distributed and 26 centers and 16 units have been accredited. At the bibliometric level, one of the most relevant evaluation criteria is the need for guarantor researchers to have a Normalized Impact of, at least, 1.5. In this work, we critically analyze the origin of this bibliometric indicator in the eighties, the variants that have been proposed and the limitations of its use in this national call. Finally we offer a series of practical recommendations for a more accurate use of the Normalized Impact indicator for evaluative purposes.

Abstract

 The overarching aim of this work is to provide a detailed description of the free version of Dimensions (new bibliographic database produced by Digital Science and launched in January 2018). To do this, the work is divided into two differentiated blocks. First, its characteristics, operation, and features are described, focusing on its main strengths and weaknesses. Secondly, an analysis of its coverage is carried out (comparing it against Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus and Google Scholar) in order to determine whether the bibliometric indicators offered by Dimensions have an order of magnitude significant enough to be used. To this end, an analysis is carried out at three levels: journals (sample of 20 publications in ‘Library & Information Science’), documents (276 articles published by the Journal of informetrics between 2013 and 2015), and authors (28 people awarded with the Derek de Solla Price prize). Preliminary results indicate that Dimensions has coverage of the recent literature superior to Scopus, although inferior to Google Scholar. With regard to the number of citations received, Dimensions offers slightly lower figures than Scopus. Despite this, the number of citations in Dimensions exhibits a strong correlation with Scopus and somewhat less (although still significant) with Google Scholar. For this reason, it is concluded that Dimensions is an alternative for carrying out citation studies, able to rival Scopus (greater coverage and free of charge) and Google Scholar (greater functionalities for the treatment and data export).

Abstract

The current landscape on indicators is characterized by its great activity with new data sources emerging and new indicators being proposed. However, national evaluation processes in Spain and Latin America are characterized by the use of indicators and criteria defined by a conservative view of science becoming ever more updated and with a narrow vision of the scientific activity. In this text we reflect on this paradox and we put forward ideas on how we could work from the bibliometric community, both academic and professional, to connect these two worlds, new indicators and evaluation processes, that are so related and increasingly distant.