Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee‑jerk rejection

Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. No funding was received for conducting this study.The authors would like to thank Daniel Pallarés-Domínguez for his help in the data collection process and Mark Andrews for the English translation. We would also like to thank the three main Spanish philosophy and ethics associations, Asociación Española de Ética y Filosofía Política (AEEFP), Sociedad Académica de Filosofía (SAF) and Red Española de Filosofía (REF), for their collaboration during the research process and their endorsement of the data collection report.The knowledge and stance of researchers regarding bibliometric indicators is a feld of study that has gained weight in recent decades. In this paper we address this issue for the little explored areas of philosophy and ethics, and applied to a context, in this case Spain, where bibliometric indicators are widely used in evaluation processes. The study combines data from a self-administered questionnaire completed by 201 researchers and from 14 in-depth interviews with researchers selected according to their afliation, professional category, gender and area of knowledge. The survey data suggest that researchers do not consider bibliometric indicators a preferred criterion of quality, while there is a fairly high self-perception of awareness of a number of indicators. The qualitative data points to a generalised perception of a certain rejection of the specifc use of indicators, with four main positions being observed: (1) disqualifcation of the logic of metrics, (2) scepticism about the possibility of assessing quality with quantitative methods, (3) complaints about the incorporation of methods that are considered to belong to other disciplines, and (4) criticism of the consequences that this generates in the discipline of philosophy.CRUE-CSI

Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents?

The main objective of this paper is to empirically test whether the identification of highly-cited documents through Google Scholar is feasible and reliable. To this end, we carried out a longitudinal analysis (1950 to 2013), running a generic query (filtered only by year of publication) to minimise the effects of academic search engine optimisation. This gave us a final sample of 64,000 documents (1,000 per year). The strong correlation between a document’s citations and its position in the search results (r= -0.67) led us to conclude that Google Scholar is able to identify highly-cited papers effectively. This, combined with Google Scholar’s unique coverage (no restrictions on document type and source), makes the academic search engine an invaluable tool for bibliometric research relating to the identification of the most influential scientific documents. We find evidence, however, that Google Scholar ranks those documents whose language (or geographical web domain) matches with the user’s interface language higher than could be expected based on citations. Nonetheless, this language effect and other factors related to the Google Scholar’s operation, i.e. the proper identification of versions and the date of publication, only have an incidental impact. They do not compromise the ability of Google Scholar to identify the highly-cited papers

DS-UCAT: Sistema de diálogo multimodal y multilingüe para un entorno educativo

Actas de las IV Jornadas de Tecnología del Habla (JTH 2006)En este artículo presentamos un sistema de diálogo multimodal y multilingüe que estamos desarrollando para proporcionar asistencia a estudiantes y profesores en algunas de sus actividades habituales en un entorno educativo, p. e. en una Facultad de una Universidad. Tenemos previsto que además de interactuar con el usuario, el sistema pueda interactuar con el entorno en que éste se encuentra en un momento dado, el cual puede cambiar a lo largo de una interacción conforme el usuario se mueve dentro del centro educativo. El artículo describe la arquitectura del sistema, muestra cómo se realiza la interacción con la versión actual del mismo, y comenta cómo tenemos previsto utilizar técnicas de inteligencia ambiental para mejorar su funcionamiento.Este trabajo ha sido financiado por el Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, mediante el proyecto TIN2004-03140 Ubiquitous Collaborative Training

Google Scholar Metrics evolution: an analysis according to languages

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1164-8In November 2012 the Google Scholar Metrics (GSM) journal rankings were updated, making it possible to compare bibliometric indicators in the ten languages indexed—and their stability—with the April 2012 version. The h-index and h-5 median of 1,000 journals were analysed, comparing their averages, maximum and minimum values and the correlation coefficient within rankings. The bibliometric figures grew significantly. In just seven and a half months the h-index of the journals increased by 15 % and the median h-index by 17 %. This growth was observed for all the bibliometric indicators analysed and for practically every journal. However, we found significant differences in growth rates depending on the language in which the journal is published. Moreover, the journal rankings seem to be stable between April and November, reinforcing the credibility of the data held by Google Scholar and the reliability of the GSM journal rankings, despite the uncontrolled growth of Google Scholar. Based on the findings of this study we suggest, firstly, that Google should upgrade its rankings at least semi-annually and, secondly, that the results should be displayed in each ranking proportionally to the number of journals indexed by language.Orduña Malea, E.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). Google Scholar Metrics evolution: an analysis according to languages. Scientometrics. 98(3):2353-2367. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1164-8S23532367983Aguillo, & Isidro, F. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(2), 343–351.Brewington, B. E., & Cybenko, G. (2000). How dynamic is the Web? Computer Networks, 33(1–6), 257–276.Chen, X. (2010). Google Scholar’s dramatic coverage improvement five years after debut. Serials Review, 36(4), 221–226.Cho, Y. & Garcia-Molina, H. (2000). The evolution of the web and implications for an incremental crawler. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on very large data bases, 200–209.Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). The h-index: advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193–203.de Winter, J. C. F., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2013). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2 .Delgado López-Cózar, E., & Cabezas-Clavijo, A. (2012). Google Scholar Metrics: an unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals. El profesional de la información, 21(4), 419–427.Delgado López-Cózar, E., & Cabezas-Clavijo, A. (2013). Ranking journals: could Google Scholar metrics be an alternative to journal citation reports and Scimago journal ranks. Learned publishing, 26(2), 101–114.Fetterly, D., Manasse, M., Najork, M. & Wiener, J. (2003). A large scale study of the evolution of web pages. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on World Wide Web, 669–678.Harzing, A.-W. (2013). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: a longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1057–1075.Jacsó, P. (2012). Google Scholar Metrics for Publications—The software and content feature of a new open access bibliometric service. Online Information Review, 36(4), 604–619.Koehler, W. (2002). Web page change and persistence-4-year longitudinal web study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 162–171.Koehler, W (2004). A longitudinal study of Web pages continued a consideration of document persistence. Information Research, 9(2). http://informationr.net/ir/9-2/paper174.html . Accessed 1 Sep 2013.Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar Citations and Google Web/URL citations: a multidiscipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055–1065.Leydesdorff, L. (2012). World shares of publications of the USA, EU-27, and China compared and predicted using the new Web of Science interface versus Scopus. El profesional de la información, 21(1), 43–49.Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A., & Wrede, C. (2006). The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. Libraries and the Academy, 6(2), 127–141.Orduña-Malea, E., Serrano-Cobos, J., & Lloret-Romero, N. (2009). Las universidades públicas españolas en Google Scholar: presencia y evolución de su publicación académica web. El profesional de la información, 18(5), 493–500.Orduña-Malea, E., Serrano-Cobos, J., Ontalba-Ruipérez, J.-A., & Lloret-Romero, N. (2010). Presencia y visibilidad web de las universidades públicas españolas. Revista española de documentación científica, 33(2), 246–278.Ortega, J. L., Aguillo, I. F., & Prieto, J. A. (2006). Longitudinal study of contents and elements in the scientific Web environment. Journal of Information Science, 32(4), 344–351.Payne, N., & Thelwall, M. (2007). A longitudinal study of academic webs: growth and stabilization. Scientometrics, 71(3), 523–539

Nature s Top 100 Re-Revisited

"This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Martín-Martín, A., Ayllon, J. M., López-Cózar, E. D., & Orduna-Malea, E. (2015). Nature's top 100 Re-revisited. JASIST, 66(12), 2714., which has been published in final form at http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23570. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving."To mark the 50th anniversary of the Science Citation Index, Nature published a list of the 100 most-cited papers of all time. It also included an alternative ranking from data provided by Google Scholar, which, as this letter illustrates, contains certain inconsistencies. This does not, however, diminish the usefulness of Google Scholar, not only in identifying the most-cited articles of all time, but also in reflecting the impact of other document types (especially books), thus redefining the concept of academic impact. Keywords:Martín-Martín, A.; Ayllón, JM.; Delgado López-Cózar, E.; Orduña Malea, E. (2015). Nature s Top 100 Re-Revisited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 66(12):2714-2714. doi:10.1002/asi.23570271427146612Bornmann , L. Nature's top 100 revisited. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/icons/top_100.pdfGarfield , E. 2005 The agony and the ecstasy-the history and meaning of the Journal Impact Factor http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jifchicago2005.pdfMartin-Martin , A. Orduna-Malea , E. Ayllon , J.M. Delgado Lopez-Cozar , E. 2014 Does Google Scholar contain all highly cited documents (1950-2013)? http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8464Van Noorden, R., Maher, B., & Nuzzo, R. (2014). The top 100 papers. Nature, 514(7524), 550-553. doi:10.1038/514550

Preparación de carbón activo a partir de madera de olivo

Los carbones activos se han preparado a partir de la madera de olivo calentando ésta en un flujo de aire a la temperatura de 300°C durante un tiempo de dos horas. Posteriormente se pasó C02 y se elevó la temperatura hasta 800°C a la que se mantuvo durante una y ocho horas. Los carbones así obtenidos han sido caracterizados mediante las técnicas habituales: adsorción de gases, porosimetría de mercurio, etc. Se ha encontrado una relación entre las propiedades de los carbones, los tiempos de activación y el tamaño de partícula.Active carbons were prepared from olive tree wood, heated previously in air flux at 300°C, with carbon dioxide at 800°C and activating times of 1 and 8 hours. The carbons thus obtained were characterized by means of the usual techniques, absorption of H2, C02, p-nitrophenol and mercury porosimetry. A relationship was found between the properties of the carbons, the activating times and the particle size

Pay to publish in open access journals: Is all that glitters gold?

Se describen dos formas antagónicas de conseguir el acceso abierto a los artículos publicados en las revistas científicas. En las revistas diamante los gastos de publicación son sufragados por instituciones científicas sin ánimo de lucro mientras que en las revistas doradas editadas fundamentalmente por editoriales comerciales los costes del acceso abierto a la publicación son pagados por los autores, bien de su propio bolsillo, bien obteniendo subvenciones de las instituciones en las que trabajan o de agencias financiadoras de la investigación. Se señalan las onerosas divergencias entre los costes y los pagos por publicación y la tremenda paradoja de que la mayoría de los científicos pagados con fondos públicos para realizar sus investigaciones deban pagar por divulgar públicamente sus trabajos que, además, son evaluados por ellos mismos sin recibir compensación alguna por parte de las editoriales comerciales. Así, se entiende que muchos científicos rechacen abiertamente el pago por publicación en acceso abierto, especialmente en las disciplinas de humanidades.Two antagonistic ways of achieving open access to articles published in scientific journals are described. In diamond journals, publication costs are borne by non-profit scientific institutions, while in gold journals edited mainly by commercial publishers, the costs of open access to the publication are paid by the authors, either out of their own pocket, or by obtaining grants from the institutions in which they work or from research funding agencies. The onerous divergences between costs and payments for publication and the tremendous paradox that most scientists paid with public funds to carry out their research must pay to publicly disclose their work, which, moreover, are evaluated by themselves without receiving any compensation from commercial publishers. Thus, it is understandable that many scientists openly reject payment for open access publication, especially in the humanities disciplines

The culture of 'publish or perish' and its effects on research

Un estudio sobre prácticas académicas de publicación en el campo de la filosofía en España desvela cómo la presión por publicar y la evaluación cuantitativa de los investigadores fomentan la proliferación de prácticas fraudulentas como la publicación duplicada, el plagio, la manipulación de citas.A study on academic publication practices in the field of philosophy in Spain reveals how the pressure to publish and the quantitative evaluation of researchers encourage the proliferation of fraudulent practices such as duplicate publication, plagiarism, and citation manipulation