Abstract

The peg of this report is the 14th edition of the International Society for Informetrics and Scientometrics (ISSI) Conference, which was held in Vienna in 2013 and was by far the biggest event in this field. Based on this conference the author discusses the hottest and most controversial topics, which bibliometricians and scientometricians will have to face within the next years and even beyond. These are, amongst others, the adjustment of the peer review process to the challenges of the digital era, the crucial role of research data, the rise and necessity of new metrics, as well as the reconsideration of our proxys. Furthermore it is pointed out to which degree all these novel possibilities in the dissemination and promotion of research output will inevitably influence the role of future scientists. Finally, a short reflection on the scientometric community during this crucial period of change is given.

Abstract

Sleeping beauties (SB) is a term that is used to describe scientific articles that pass unnoticed in science for long periods of time until they are rediscovered. This phenomenon is little known in the scientific community and contradicts some of science’s basic presuppositions. At the same time, the current reality of scientific research is defined according to the quantity of information that is produced. Although the SB field of study is little known, it has very specific characteristics that generate a number of cross-cutting interpretations about the way that science reflects on itself. This article explores three problems that the SB spotlights which are conceptualized within the same epistemological approach. We concludes that the SB analysis and the expected increase in the occurrence of SBs offers a point upon which to reflect bout epistemological frameworks of scientific practice.

Abstract

The open access SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) service -built from data in the subscription-based Elsevier ’s Scopus database- offers bibliographic information and bibliometric indicators for nearly 20,000 journals and other serial publications for 1996-2011. Journals are assigned to 300+ pre-defined subject categories and 26 broad subject areas to produce league lists. The set of 134 journals assigned to the Library and Information Sciences (LIS) subject category and a sample set of 50 other LIS journals, scattered across several other categories, were analyzed in the latest edition (SJR - 2011). Recommendations are made on how SJR could be enhanced by its developers to include simple customization options in the interface to facilitate a more efficient look-up and more valid comparison of the standing of journals and other serials and to reflect the prevailing preferences at the institutions where the rank positions in journal league lists are used to inform career advancement and funding decisions. It is argued that extending the current three-year citation window to five years would be more appropriate for all disciplines, and would also make SJR  comparable to metricsbased journal league lists produced from the open access Microsoft Academic Search  (MAS ), Google Scholar Metrics for Publications (GSMP ), and Eigenfactor.org (EF) data and the subscription-based Journal Citation Reports (JCR), which pioneered the idea of a metrics-based journal league list.

Abstract

The open access SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) service -built from data in the subscription-based Elsevier ’s Scopus database- offers bibliographic information and bibliometric indicators for nearly 20,000 journals and other serial publications for 1996-2011. Journals are assigned to 300+ pre-defined subject categories and 26 broad subject areas to produce league lists. The set of 134 journals assigned to the Library and Information Sciences (LIS) subject category and a sample set of 50 other LIS journals, scattered across several other categories, were analyzed in the latest edition (SJR - 2011). Recommendations are made on how SJR could be enhanced by its developers to include simple customization options in the interface to facilitate a more efficient look-up and more valid comparison of the standing of journals and other serials and to reflect the prevailing preferences at the institutions where the rank positions in journal league lists are used to inform career advancement and funding decisions. It is argued that extending the current three-year citation window to five years would be more appropriate for all disciplines, and would also make SJR  comparable to metricsbased journal league lists produced from the open access Microsoft Academic Search  (MAS ), Google Scholar Metrics for Publications (GSMP ), and Eigenfactor.org (EF) data and the subscription-based Journal Citation Reports (JCR), which pioneered the idea of a metrics-based journal league list.

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

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

The extensive use of the web by many sectors of society has created the potential for new wider impact indicators. This article reviews research about Google Scholar and Google Patents, both of which can be used as sources of impact indicators for academic articles. It also briefly reviews methods to extract types of links and citations from the web as a whole, although the indicators that these generate are now probably too broad and too dominated by automatically generated websites, such as library and publisher catalogues, to be useful in practice. More valuable web-based indicators can be derived from specific types of web pages that cite academic research, such as online presentations, course syllabi, and science blogs. These provide evidence that is easier to understand and use and less likely to be affected by unwanted types of automatically generated content, although they are susceptible to gaming.

Abstract

This literature review assesses indicators derived from social media sources, including both general and academic sites. Such indicators have been termed altmetrics, influmetrics, social media metrics, or a type of webometric, and have recently been commercialised by a number of companies and employed by some publishers and university administrators. The social media metrics analysed here derive mainly from Twitter, Facebook, Google+, F1000, Mendeley, ResearchGate, and Academia.edu. They have the apparent potential to deliver fast, free indicators of the wider societal impact of research, or of different types of academic impacts, complementing academic impact indicators from traditional citation indexes. Although it is unwise to employ them in formal evaluations with stakeholders, due to their susceptibility to gaming and lack of real evidence that they reflect wider research impacts, they are useful for formative evaluations and to investigate science itself. Mendeley reader counts are particularly promising.

Abstract

The field of development studies analyses causes and potential solutions for global poverty and inequality. Since the Second World War there have been major changes in theories about the root causes of global poverty and the strategies necessary to tackle it. This article views the history of development studies from the perspective of the role of economics during 1975-2014. A topic modelling analysis of published journal articles from Scopus suggests that there has been a relative decline in research that focuses on economics, and particularly for research concerned with firms and growth. In parallel, the analysis suggests that there has been a relatively slow increase in interest in the environment, a lack of scholarly interest in BRICS and dependency theory, and a relatively homogeneous treatment of gender issues.

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.