Reviewing, indicating, and counting books for modern research evaluation systems

In this chapter, we focus on the specialists who have helped to improve the conditions for book assessments in research evaluation exercises, with empirically based data and insights supporting their greater integration. Our review highlights the research carried out by four types of expert communities, referred to as the monitors, the subject classifiers, the indexers and the indicator constructionists. Many challenges lie ahead for scholars affiliated with these communities, particularly the latter three. By acknowledging their unique, yet interrelated roles, we show where the greatest potential is for both quantitative and qualitative indicator advancements in book-inclusive evaluation systems.Comment: Forthcoming in Glanzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch U., Thelwall, M. (2018). Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer Some corrections made in subsection 'Publisher prestige or quality

Diseño y evaluación de un laboratorio virtual para visualizar en 3D el gradiente y la derivada direccional en un campo escalar bidimensional

Congreso Universitario de Innovación Educativa En las Enseñanzas Técnicas, CUIEET (26º. 2018. Gijón

Mapping the Role of the Book in Evaluation at the Individual and Department Level in Italian SSH. A Multisource Analysis

Some specificities of the Italian situation are outlined with respect to the origins of evaluation and the organisation of knowledge into disciplinary sectors as a background to the analysis of data on the primary activities of research evaluation at different levels. Attention is focused on the criteria on which the concept of research quality in social sciences and humanities (SSH) is based in Italy through the analysis of publications submitted for VQR evaluation and the requirements for the Italian university teaching qualification (ASN). It is argued that a clear picture of the behaviour of scholars as both evaluatees and evalutators is essential to any objective and responsible definition of the contribution that bibliometrics can make to SSH evaluation, not as the only tool but as an aid to support peer review and counteract any potentially subjective and arbitrary aspects. The closing discussion regards two open questions, namely evaluation of research vs. evaluation of third mission activities in SSH and the risk of unexpected consequences arising when evaluation becomes an end in itself rather than a means for improvement.Some specificities of the Italian situation are outlined with respect to the origins of evaluation and the organisation of knowledge into disciplinary sectors as a background to the analysis of data on the primary activities of research evaluation at different levels. Attention is focused on the criteria on which the concept of research quality in social sciences and humanities (SSH) is based in Italy through the analysis of publications submitted for VQR evaluation and the requirements for the Italian university teaching qualification (ASN). It is argued that a clear picture of the behaviour of scholars as both evaluatees and evalutators is essential to any objective and responsible definition of the contribution that bibliometrics can make to SSH evaluation, not as the only tool but as an aid to support peer review and counteract any potentially subjective and arbitrary aspects. The closing discussion regards two open questions, namely evaluation of research vs. evaluation of third mission activities in SSH and the risk of unexpected consequences arising when evaluation becomes an end in itself rather than a means for improvement