Hábitos de publicación y citación según campos científicosPrincipales diferencias a partir de las revistas JCR

  1. Dorta González, Pablo
  2. Dorta González, María Isabel
Revista:
Revista española de documentación científica

ISSN: 0210-0614 1988-4621

Año de publicación: 2013

Volumen: 36

Número: 4

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3989/REDC.2013.4.1003 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista española de documentación científica

Resumen

Los indicadores de impacto de revistas no son comparables entre campos científicos debido a las diferencias significativas en los hábitos de publicación y citación. En este trabajo se presenta una descomposición del factor de impacto en cinco variables independientes. Esta descomposición se aplica a las categorías de revista, campos y áreas considerados en las bases de datos del principal proveedor de indicadores científicos, Thomson Reuters. Para localizar las fuentes de la varianza se emplea un Análisis de Componentes Principales y para detectar las semejanzas se utiliza un Análisis Cluster. A pesar de las diferencias sistemáticas entre disciplinas, las componentes principales explican el 78% de la varianza total. Existen categorías de Ciencias que están más próximas, desde el punto de vista estadístico, de algunas Ciencias Sociales que del resto de Ciencias y viceversa.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Althouse, B. M.; West, J. D.; Bergstrom, C. T.; Bergstrom, T. (2009). Differences in impact factor across fields and over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 60, nº 1, 27–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20936
  • Bensman, S. J. (2007). Garfield and the impact factor. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, v. 41, nº 1, 93–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aris.2007.1440410110
  • Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College and Research Libraries News, v. 68, nº 5, 314.
  • Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behaviour. Journal of Documentation, v. 64, nº 1, 45–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150
  • Dorta-González, P.; Dorta-González, M. I. (2010). Indicador bibliométrico basado en el índice h. Revista Espa-ola de Documentación Científica, v. 33, nº 2, 225–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2010.2.733
  • Dorta-González, P.; Dorta-González, M. I. (2011a). Aplicación empírica de un indicador bibliométrico basado en el índice h. Cultura y Educación, v. 23, nº 2, 297–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/113564011795944695
  • Dorta-González, P.; Dorta-González, M. I. (2011b). Central indexes to the citation distribution: A complement to the h-index. Scientometrics, v. 88, nº 3, 729–745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0453-3
  • Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R. (2002). A general framework for relative impact indicators. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, v. 27, nº 1, 29–48.
  • Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, v. 178, nº 4060, 471–479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4060.471
  • Garfield, E. (1979a). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in Science, Technology, and Humanities. New York: John Wiley.
  • Garfield, E. (1979b). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?. Scientometrics, v. 1, nº 4, 359–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02019306
  • González-Pereira, B.; Guerrero-Bote, V. P.; Moya-Anegón, F. (2011). A new approach to the metric of journals' scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics, v. 4, nº 3, 379–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.002
  • Leydesdorff, L. (2006): Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations using the Journal Citation Reports?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, v. 57, nº 5, 601–613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20322
  • Leydesdorff, L., y Bornmann, L. (2011). How fractional counting of citations affects the Impact Factor: Normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, v. 62, nº 2, 217–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21450
  • Leydesdorff, L.; Opthof, T. (2010a). Normalization at the field level: Fractional counting of citations. Journal of Informetrics, v. 4, nº 4, 644–646. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.05.003
  • Leydesdorff, L.; Opthof, T. (2010b). Scopus's source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 61, nº 11, 2365–2369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21371
  • Leydesdorff, L.; Rafols, I. (2011). Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations. Journal of Informetrics, v. 5, nº 1, 87–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.09.002
  • Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals, Journal of Informetrics, v. 4, nº 3, 265–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.01.002
  • Opthof, T.; Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance, Journal of Informetrics. v. 4, nº 3, 423–430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.02.003
  • Pudovkin, A. I.; Garfield, E. (2002). Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 53, nº 13, 1113–1119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.10153
  • Rafols, I.; Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals: Perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 60, nº 9, 1823–1835. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21086
  • Rosvall, M.; Bergstrom, C. T. (2008). Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 105, nº 4, 1118–1123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706851105
  • Rosvall, M.; Bergstrom, C. T. (2010). Mapping change in large networks. PLoS ONE, v. 5, nº 1, e8694. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008694
  • Van Raan, A. F. J.; Van Leeuwen, T. N.; Visser, M. S.; Van Eck, N. J.; Waltman, L. (2010). Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Journal of Informetrics, v. 4, nº 3, 431–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.008
  • Wagner, C.; Roessner, J. D.; Bobb, K.; Klein, J.; Boyack, K.; Keyton, J.; Rafols, I.; Börner, K. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature, Journal of Informetrics, v. 5, nº 1, 14–26 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004
  • Waltman, L.; Van Eck, N. J. (2010). The relation between Eigenfactor, Audience Factor, and Influence Weight. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 61, nº 7, 1476–1486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21354
  • Waltman, L.; Yan, E.; Van Eck, N. J. (2011). A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: An application to the field of library and information science. Scientometrics, v. 89, nº 1, 301–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0449-z
  • Zitt, M.; Small, H. (2008): Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 59, nº 11, 1856–1860. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20880