1,018 research outputs found
DataCite as a novel bibliometric source: Coverage, strengths and limitations
This paper explores the characteristics of DataCite to determine its
possibilities and potential as a new bibliometric data source to analyze the
scholarly production of open data. Open science and the increasing data sharing
requirements from governments, funding bodies, institutions and scientific
journals has led to a pressing demand for the development of data metrics. As a
very first step towards reliable data metrics, we need to better comprehend the
limitations and caveats of the information provided by sources of open data. In
this paper, we critically examine records downloaded from the DataCite's OAI
API and elaborate a series of recommendations regarding the use of this source
for bibliometric analyses of open data. We highlight issues related to metadata
incompleteness, lack of standardization, and ambiguous definitions of several
fields. Despite these limitations, we emphasize DataCite's value and potential
to become one of the main sources for data metrics development.Comment: Paper accepted for publication in Journal of Informetric
Analyzing the disciplinary focus of universities: Can rankings be a one-size-fits-all?
The phenomenon of rankings is intimately related with the government interest
in fiscalizing the research outputs of universities. New forms of managerialism
have been introduced into the higher education system, leading to an increasing
interest from funding bodies in developing external evaluation tools to
allocate funds. Rankings rely heavily on bibliometric indicators. But
bibliometricians have been very critical with their use. Among other, they have
pointed out the over-simplistic view rankings represent when analyzing the
research output of universities, as they consider them as homogeneous ignoring
disciplinary differences. Although many university rankings now include league
tables by fields, reducing the complex framework of universities' research
activity to a single dimension leads to poor judgment and decision making. This
is partly because of the influence disciplinary specialization has on research
evaluation. This chapter analyzes from a methodological perspective how
rankings suppress disciplinary differences which are key factors to interpret
correctly these rankings.Comment: Robinson-Garcia, N., Jim\'enez-Contreras, E. (2017). Analyzing the
disciplinary focus of universities: Can rankings be a one-size-fits-all? In:
Downing, K., F.A. Ganotice (eds). World University Rankings and the Future of
Higher Education. IGI Global, pp. 161-185.
doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0819-9.ch00
- …