Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
II FORO CCHS
EVALUACIÓN DE LA ACTIVIDAD CIENTÍFICA
EN CIENCIAS HUMANAS Y SOCIALES
Elea Giménez [email protected]
Grupo de investigación de evaluación de publicaciones científicas (EPUC)http://epuc.cchs.csic.es/
Instituto de Estudios Documentales sobre Ciencia y Tecnología (IEDCYT)Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales (CCHS)
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
CONTEXTO Y NECESIDADES
Contexto y necesidades
Entorno exigente y competitivo
Necesidad de marcar y cumplir objetivos
Objetivos de política científica y su consonancia con la reciente “cultura de la evaluación”
Posibilidad de comparar áreas científicas
La preocupación por la evaluación en CHS NO solo es un asunto que preocupe en España
Sistemas de evaluación justos y eficientes ???
Herramientas de apoyo a la evaluación ¿públicas? ¿privadas?
Ante la necesidad de evaluar:
Defender las formas de comunicación de las CSH
Autocrítica
EVIDENCIAS CIENTÍFICAS
Evidencias científicas
Solo algunas relacionadas con los hábitos de comunicación
…Predominio de las monografías en las Humanidades (Hicks, 2004)
El 75% en Literatura inglesa (Heinzkill, 1980). El 66% en Wolfe Thomson, 2002
el 82% en Literatura (Stern, 1983)
el 65% en Historia de la Ciencia (McCain, 1987)
El 70% en Filosofía (Cullars, 1992)
Una media del 60% en un conjunto de áreas (Broadus, 1971; Nederhof, 1995; Cullars, 1998; Glänzel and Schoepflin, 1999)
Más del 70% en revistas españolas de Historia contemporánea (Sanz Casado et al., 2002)
Más del 71% de citas a otros documentos en el conjunto de revistas españolas (RESH. EPUC. CSIC. 2004)
Evidencias científicas
La percepción de la calidad de las revistas es
diferente según las disciplinas que las valoren y las
escuelas de pensamiento (Theoharakis, 2005)
Hay revistas muy bien valoradas por los expertos
con un bajo factor de impacto.
… y otras evidencias científicas relacionadas con el
factor de impacto
THE MISUSED IMPACT FACTOR
SCIENCE 10 OCTOBER 2008: VOL. 322 NO. 5899 P. 165 DOI:10.1126/SCIENCE.1165316
Kai Simons. Kai Simons is president of the European Life Scientist Organization and is at the Max Plank
Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics in Dresden, Germany.
Research papers from all over the world are published in thousands of Science
journals every year. The quality of these papers clearly has to be evaluated, not
only to determine their accuracy and contribution to fields of research, but also to
help make informed decisions about rewarding scientists with funding and
appointments to research positions. One measure often used to determine the
quality of a paper is the so-called "impact factor" of the journal in which it was
published. This citation-based metric is meant to rank scientific journals, but there
have been numerous criticisms over the years of its use as a measure of the quality
of individual research papers. Still, this misuse persists. Why?
UNSCIENTIFIC PRACTICE FLOURISHES IN SCIENCE
IMPACT FACTORS OF JOURNALS SHOULD NOT BE USED
IN RESEARCH ASSESSMENT
BMJ. 1998 APRIL 4; 316(7137): 1036.
Richard Smith, Editor
All around the world the scientific performance of individuals and
research groups is being assessed using the impact factors of the
journals in which they publish. Unfortunately the indisputable
evidence that this method is scientifically meaningless is being
ignored. Those who assess the performance of researchers seem to
be bewitched by the spurious precision of a number that is available
to several decimal places.
FORTNIGHTLY REVIEW: HOW CAN IMPACT
FACTORS BE IMPROVED?
BMJ 313:441 (Published 17 August 1996). Eugene Garfield, Chairman Emeritus.
Impact factors are widely used to rank and evaluate journals. They are
also often used inappropriately as surrogates in evaluation exercises. The
inventor of the Science Citation Index warns against the indiscriminate
use of these data. Fourteen year cumulative impact data for 10 leading
medical journals provide a quantitative indicator of their long term
influence. In the final analysis, impact simply reflects the ability of journals
and editors to attract the best papers available.
IMPACT FACTOR: A VALID MEASURE OF
JOURNAL QUALITY?
Somnath Saha, M.D., M.P.H., Assistant Professor,1 Sanjay Saint, M.D., M.P.H., Associate
Professor,2 and Dimitri A. Christakis, M.D., M.P.H., Assistant Professor3
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Impact factor, an index based on the frequency with
which a journal's articles are cited in scientific publications, is a
putative marker of journal quality. However, empiric studies on
impact factor's validity as an indicator of quality are lacking. The
authors assessed the validity of impact factor as a measure of
quality for general medical journals by testing its association with
journal quality as rated by clinical practitioners and researchers.
THE JOURNAL ―IMPACT FACTOR‖
A MISNAMED, MISLEADING, MISUSED
MEASURE
Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics, Volume 104, Issue 2, Pages 77-81, 15 July 1998
Misnamed, Misleading, Misused Measure
Frederick Hecht ,Barbara K Hecht Avery A Sandberg
Abstract
The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), a database publishing company that publishes
Current Contents and Science Citation Index, has devised and promulgated what it terms the
journal “impact factor.” ISI describes this factor as a “measure of the frequency with which
the „average article‟ in a journal has been cited in a particular year.” The factor is a ratio
between citations and recent citable published items calculated by dividing the number of
all current citations of items published in a journal during the preceding 2 years by the
number of articles published in those 2 years by that journal. What, if anything, is wrong
with the “impact factor”? There is absolutely nothing incorrect with the calculation of the
ratio itself. However, the “impact factor” is misnamed and misleading.
IMPACT FACTORS:
USE AND ABUSE
M. Amin & M. Mabe
Elsevier
Perspectives in Publishing, October 200, No.1.
The ISI® Journal Citation Reports (JCR®) impact factor has moved in recent years
from an obscure bibliometric indicator to become the chief quantitative measure
of the quality of a journal, its research papers, the researchers who wrote those
papers, and even the institution they work in. This pamphlet looks at the limitations
of the impact factor, how it can and how it should
not be used.
A DEFICIENCY IN THE ALGORITHM FOR CALCULATING
THE IMPACT FACTOR OF SCHOLARLY JOURNALS:
THE JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR
Péter Jacsó
(Department of Information and Computer Science, University of Hawai‟i at Mãnoa,Honolulu)
The Journal Citation Reports ® (JCR), published by the Institute for Scientific Information, annually ranks more than 6,500 science and social science journals, by calculating their impact factors (and many other useful measures) from the citations they receive from journals monitored by ISI in the Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) databases that process about 25 million citations annually.
THE LEVEL OF NON-CITATION OF ARTICLES WITHIN A
JOURNAL AS A MEASURE OF QUALITY: A
COMPARISON TO THE IMPACT FACTORBMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2004, 4:14DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-4-14
Andy R Weale , Mick Bailey and Paul A Lear
Abstract
Background
Current methods of measuring the quality of journals assume that citations of articles within journals are normally distributed. Furthermore using journal impact factors to measure the quality of individual articles is flawed if citations are not uniformly spread between articles. The aim of this study was to assess the distribution of citations to articles and use the level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality. This ranking method is compared with the impact factor, as calculated by ISI®.
IMPACT FACTORS: ARBITER OF
EXCELLENCE?
J MED LIBR ASSOC. 2003 JANUARY; 91(1): 4–6.
Martin Frank, Ph.D., Executive Director American Physiological Society 9650 Rockville Pike Bethesda,
Maryland 20814-3991
Several years ago, a young faculty member at a major university informed me that her department
chair had mandated that any faculty member seeking tenure should make sure to publish manuscripts
only in journals with an impact factor of 5.0 or greater. As the publisher of a large number of scientific
journals, I was offended by the effort of the chair to attempt to correlate the impact factor of the
journal with the impact, or excellence, of the faculty member's research. It was apparent that the chair
did not realize that impact factor, a bibliometric indicator developed by ISI, was not a measure of
scientific quality. Instead, it would have been more relevant to use the actual citation frequency of the
scientific paper in evaluating the work of individual scientists.
SENSE AND NONSENSE ABOUT THE IMPACT
FACTOR
Cardiovasc Res (1997) 33 (1): 1-7. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6363(96)00215-5.
Tobias Opthof
Abstract
The impact factor is based on citations of papers published
by a scientific journal. It has been published since 1961 by
the Institute for Scientific Information. It may be regarded as
an estimate of the citation rate of a journal's papers, and the
higher its value, the higher the scientific esteem of the
journal. Although the impact factor was originally meant for
comparison of journals, it is also used for assessment of the
quality of individual papers, scientists and departments. For
the latter a scientific basis is lacking, as we will demonstrate
in this contribution. .
CITATION RATES AND IMPACT FACTORS:
SHOULD THEY MATTER?
British Journal of Radiology 74 (2001),1-3 © 2001 The British Institute of Radiology G H Whitehouse, DSc, FRCP, FRCR
Introduction
It is our national joy to mistake for the first rate, the fecund rate. Dorothy Parker, 1893–1967
Standards of scientific work are most appropriately judged by peer review, meaning scrutiny only by experts in the particular field. When it comes to judging scientific output for a particular purpose, for example resource allocation to and within universities or for individual promotion and awards, the application of rigorous peer review is a time consuming process and true experts with available time are generally a scarce commodity. Quantitative measures of scientific output have therefore been sought as a more accessible alternative. Publication counts alone do not inform about the quality of scientific output but, so one theory goes, may do so when publication is in journals that are generally regarded as being of good repute. This has led to the practice of evaluation by citation rates and impact factors.
SHOULD WE DITCH IMPACT
FACTORS?
Gareth Williams, dean. BMJ. 2007 March 17; 334(7593): 568.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.39146.549225.BE.
Even advocates of impact factors admit that they are a flawed measure of quality. Gareth Williams believes we should get rid of them whereas Richard Hobbs thinks refinement is the answer.
Proper measurement of the quality of research requires a thorough understanding of the subject, balanced evaluation of evidence (which may take years to acquire), and ultimately consensus among experts. All in all, a tall order—as shown by the decades which the Nobel Prize Committee may take to recognize achievement and by the controversy which often follows its decisions.
HOW IMPACT FACTORS CHANGED
MEDICAL PUBLISHING—AND SCIENCE
Hannah Brown, freelance journalist. BMJ. 2007 March 17; 334(7593): 561–564. doi:
10.1136/bmj.39142.454086.AD.
George Lundberg spent the early 1980s lamenting the loss of his journal's once great
reputation. JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association), which he had taken
over in 1982, had been in decline since its peak of popularity in the 1960s. And a new set
of rankings that pitted medical journals against each other on the basis of article citations
now seemed to confirm that JAMA was a long way behind the best. To make his editorship
successful, Dr Lundberg needed a recovery strategy.
IMPACT OF BIBLIOMETRICS UPON THE SCIENCE
SYSTEM: INADVERTENT CONSEQUENCES?
Scientometrics, and Springer, Dordrecht Vol. 62, No. 1 (2005) 117.131
PETER WEINGART Institute for Science & Technology Studies, University of Bielefeld,
Bielefeld (Germany)
The introduction of bibliometric (and other) ranking is an answer to legitimation pressures
on the higher education and research system. After years of hesitation by scientists, science
administrators and even politicians in many of the industrialized countries, the
implementation of bibliometrics based (and other types of) rankings for institutions of
higher education and research is now being introduced on a full scale. What used to be an
irritation to the parties concerned has suddenly become a fad.
EL FACTOR DE IMPACTO DE LAS REVISTAS
CIENTÍFICAS: LIMITACIONES E INDICADORES
ALTERNATIVOS
Volume 16, Number 1 / January-February 2007 Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent A1, Juan Carlos Valderrama-Zurián A2, Gregorio González-Alcaide A3
Abstract:
Impact Factor measures the average number of times that articles published in the last two years are cited in the current year. In spite of its limitations, the evaluation agencies of some countries like Spain use it in research assessment, generating a deep unease within some circles that consider its use inappropriate and indiscriminate. As an alternative to the Impact Factor of Thomson ISI, other indicators have been proposed, although none of them have achieved sufficient acceptance and widespread use to be systematically applied. Among Spanish initiatives, most notable are the Potential Impact Factor of The Spanish Medical Journals, developed by the Siniac team (Information systems and research activity indicators) from the Instituto de Historia de la Ciencia y Documentación López Piñero(Valencia, Spain), and the Índice de impacto de las revistas españolas de ciencias sociales (In-Recs), developed by the EC3 research group at Library and Documentation department of Granada University (Spain).
ALGUNAS REFLEXIONES Y CONSIDERACIONES
SOBRE EL FACTOR DE IMPACTO
Arch Bronconeumol. 2003;39:409-17.JI de Granda Orive
Introducción
En general existe un desconocimiento de los indicadores
bibliométricos y, más específicamente, del factor de
impacto, utilizándose en muchas ocasiones de una manera
inadecuada. Esta reflexión nos sirve para realizar, en este
trabajo, algunas consideraciones sobre qué es y para qué
se utiliza el factor de impacto, así como las bases de datos
internacionales.
DIME CUÁNTO NOS CITAN Y TE DIRÉ... EL
FACTOR DE IMPACTO
BIBLIOGRÁFICO DE GACETA SANITARIA
NOTA EDITORIAL Gac Sanit v.17 n.3 Barcelona mayo-jun. 2003
¿Cómo se consigue la inclusión en el SCI? Responder que ésa es la «pregunta del millón» sería demasiado dilatorio... En palabras del ISI (www.isinet.com), la valoración de las revistas tiene varios componentes: su calidad formal, su periodicidad, su difusión, la calidad científica de sus editores y de los trabajos publicados, y, aunque se nos antoje un razonamiento circular, su visibilidad como revista citada: es decir, su FIB. Seguramente es algo más complicado, y aunque las normas del juego no están bien marcadas, la experiencia y las percepciones de otras revistas
EL IMPACTO DEL FACTOR DE IMPACTO:
¿MITO O REALIDAD?
Fidias E. Leon-Sarmiento, Martha E. Leon-S, Víctor A. Contreras Colomb Med 2007; 38(3):290-296
La evaluación de la producción científica latinoamericana ha pasado por varias etapas, siendo el factor de impacto numérico (FIN), el método más publicitado en la actualidad. Infortunadamente, dicho FIN no sirve para medir de forma adecuada, la ciencia que se basa en el prestigio sino que es, eminentemente, una manera de evaluar la popularidad de una revista científica. Una importante cantidad de sesgos idiomáticos, matemáticos y científicos en general, impiden el uso del FIN como medida bibliométrica latinoamericana
ALGUNAS PRECISIONES NECESARIAS EN
TORNO AL USO DEL FACTOR DE IMPACTO
COMO HERRAMIENTA DE EVALUACIÓN
CIENTÍFICA
Página del Editor
ACIMED v.13 n.5 Ciudad de La Habana sep.-oct. 2005
Con el objetivo de realizar un grupo de precisiones entorno al uso del factor de impacto como herramienta de evaluación académica, tanto de la literatura como de los especialistas, se estudió la importancia de las referencias bibliográficas en el trabajo científico, algunos factores que influyen en los índices de citación de los artículos, así como el factor de impacto: sus principales limitaciones y su empleo en la evaluación del quehacer académico. Finalmente, se ofrecen algunos consejos para obtener una publicación visible.
THE FOUR LITERATURES OF SOCIAL
SCIENCE
Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research,ed. H F Moed, Dordrecht, The Nederlands: Kluwer Academic (2004), 473-496
Diana Hicks: Professor and Chair of the School of Public Policy, Georgia Tech.
This chapter reviews bibliometric studies of the social sciences and humanities. The
premise of the chapter is that quantitative evaluation of research output in the social
sciences and humanities faces severe methodological difficulties. Bibliometric evaluations
are based on international journal literature indexed in the SSCI, but social scientists also
publish books, and write for national journals and for the non-scholarly press.
ASSESSMENT OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL
SCIENCES MONOGRAPHS THROUGH THEIR
PUBLISHERS: A REVIEW AND A STUDY TOWARDS
A MODEL OF EVALUATION
Elea Giménez-Toledo and Adelaida Román-Román
Research Evaluation, 18(3), September 2009, pages 201-213
This paper deals with the evaluation of monographs in the context of the special importance that they have as a means of communication of the results for human and social sciences research. First, a revision of some of the projects developed at institutions from various countries which have applied diverse methodologies and indicators to monographs, and in which the valuation of publishers has had a relevant position, is offered. Second, a working plan is presented, which includes a methodological proposal aimed at the evaluation of the prestige of publishers and based on a double consultation of lecturers and publishers which they consider as the most prestigious. Finally, the indicators applied in the various projects analyzed are discussed, concluding with the evident necessity of creating an evaluation method with multiple indicators.
CATEGORIZACIÓN DE LAS REVISTAS
ESPAÑOLAS DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES Y
HUMANAS EN RESH
Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 2008; 31 (1), 85-95 María Dolores Alcaín Partearroyo, Adelaida
Román Román
y Elea Giménez Toledo: Instituto de Estudios Documentales sobre Ciencia y Tecnología (IEDCYT, antes CINDOC).
El propósito de esta nota es comunicar y explicar las últimas mejoras incorporadas a la plataforma RESH,
sistema integrado de evaluación que se basa en diversos tipos de indicadores de calidad en relación con el
proceso editorial, la revisión por pares, la visibilidad internacional y los índices de impacto. El grupo que
desarrolla RESH ha estado trabajando en la puesta a punto de un sistema de baremación que adjudica
diferente peso a los indicadores que miden los diferentes aspectos de la calidad, con objeto de poder
construir listas jerarquizadas (ranking) de las revistas en el contexto de sus disciplinas y/o de sus áreas del
conocimiento. A partir de ahora, evaluadores, autores y editores podrán encontrar en RESH la posición que
ocupa cada revista en el contexto de su especialidad, así como los datos que dan origen a la posición final
alcanzada por cada revista.
CITATION CHARACTERISTICS OF
MONOGRAPHS IN THE FINE ARTS
Library Quarterly, 1992; 62 (3), 325-342
John Cullars: University of Illinois at Chicago
The purpose of this study is to determine the characteristics of citations found in monographs in the fine arts. A random sample of 581 citations was selected from 158 monographs published in 1985 and 1986 and indexed by RILA (Répertoire international de la littérature de l'art). Citations were classified as to source type (book, journal article, manuscript, thesis); primary or secondary source; language; date of publication; and the citing author's reason for making the citation. The findings of this study were then compared to those of other citation studies of the literature of the fine arts and of literary criticism. This study's findings are generally similar to those of other studies of citation patterns in the humanities, but citations to books were found to be somewhat less important and those to manuscripts somewhat more important than in earlier studies. The chronological spread of citations is more evenly distributed in fine arts monographs than in other areas of the humanities, though the greatest number of citations are to works published in the past twenty years.
CITATION CHARACTERISTICS OF ENGLISH-
LANGUAGE MONOGRAPHS IN PHILOSOPHY
Library & Information Science Research, Volume 20, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 41-68
John Cullars: University of Illinois at Chicago
This study examines 539 references from 183 single-authored philosophy
monographs, excluding collections of essays, published in 1994 and indexed by
Philosophers' Index, with each reference counted as frequently as it was cited in
the randomly selected citations. The citations were classified as to source type
(book, article in book, journal article, manuscript, thesis), language, the gender
of both citing and cited authors, the citing authors' attitudes toward the cited
material, the subject correlation between citing and cited sources, and the
chronology of the citations.
BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF EARLY MODERN HISTORY IN SPAIN
BASED ON BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES IN NATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS AND CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
Proceedings of ISSI 2007. 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics
and Informetrics. CSIC Madrid, Spain 27-27 June 2007. Madrid: CSIC, 2007, vol I. 266-271.
Francisco Fernández-Izquierdo*, Adelaida Román-Román, Cruz Rubio-Liniers**, Francisco-Javier
Moreno-Díaz-del-Campo*, Carmen Martín-Moreno, Carlos García-Zorita, Maria Luisa Lascurain-
Sánchez, Preiddy-Efraín García, Elisa Povedano and Elías Sanz-Casado.
This study evaluates the historians‟ work, with a selection of 1,282 source papers
published on early Modern History in Spain during 2000 and 2001 (417 articles
published in 15 journals, and 865 conference papers included in 14 different
proceedings, see references). They contained 44,471 bibliographic references citations
(with a repetition factor of 1.59) plus 19,269 references to archive documents or
manuscripts.
PEER REVIEW AND IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS WITH
PUBLISHERS AS A MEANS OF ASSESSING
QUALITY OF RESEARCH MONOGRAPHS
Excellence and Emergence: a New Challenge for the combination of Quantitative and
Qualitative Approaches. Book of Abstracts. 10th International Conference on Science
and Technology Indicators ,Vienna (Austria),September, 17-20 2008, 363-368.
Giménez-Toledo, E., & Román, A.: Instituto de Estudios Documentales sobre Ciencia y
Tecnología (IEDCYT, antes CINDOC).
It has often been observed that evaluating scientific activity in the Humanities and in some
of the Social Sciences needs to involve a study of monographs, as they are often the
preferred mean of publication by scientists in these fields. As well as being the most
frequently cited publication type, monographs are also the mean most often used to publish
research findings.
FROM EXPERIMENTATION TO COORDINATION IN THE
EVALUATION OF SPANISH SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS IN THE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Research Evaluation, Volume 16, Number 2, 1 June 2007 , pp. 137-148(12)
Giménez-Toledo, Elea; Román-Román, Adelaida; Maria Dolores Alcain-Partearroyo: Instituto de Estudios Documentales sobre Ciencia y Tecnología (IEDCYT, antes CINDOC).
An overview of current scientific journals evaluation initiatives in Spain is presented. Most of these models are focused on social sciences and humanities journals because of their special features, and are targeted to research evaluation activities. Indicators developed in these systems are analysed, including the methodological difficulties that they entail and the relative merits of each in terms of efficiency. Moreover, the criteria used by the evaluation agencies in relation to scientific journals are examined. Finally, a model based on a diverse range of indicators on editorial quality, international visibility, peer review and impact is proposed.
A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF REFERENCE
LITERATURE IN THE SCIENCES AND SOCIAL
SCIENCE
Information Processing and Management, 35 (1999) 31-44
Wolfgang Gläenzel: Max-Planck-Institute for the History of Science
Urs Schoepflin: Research Association for Science Communication and Information
e. V. (RASCI)
In earlier papers the authors focused on differences in the ageing of journal
literature in science and the social sciences. It was shown that for several fields
and topics bibliometric standard indicators based on journal articles need to be
modified in order to provide valid results. In fields where monographs, books or
reports are important means of scientific information, standard models of
scientific communication are not rejected by journal literature alone are also the
mean most often used to publish research findings.
PUBLICACIÓN Y EVALUACIÓN EN CHS
Publicación y evaluación en CHS
La internacionalidad viene condicionada por el
tema de investigación
Elección del idioma en función de los lectores
potenciales y del tema
Elección del medio adecuado: revista, libro, capítulo
Elección de la revista adecuada ¿debe primar el
cuartil o debe primar la especialidad de la revista
(de alta calidad)?
Publicación y evaluación en CHS
¿Es “excepcionalidad de las Humanidades” contemplar los canales de comunicación que le son propios?
Ingeniería y Arquitectura en CNEAI
Se tendrán en cuenta también los artículos publicados en revistas recogidas en bases de datos internacionales de ingeniería (como, por ejemplo, International Development Abstracts, International Civil Engineering Abstracts, Environmental Abstracts, Applied Mechanic Reviews).
(…) Los trabajos publicados en las actas de congresos que posean un sistema de revisión externa por pares, cuando estas actas sean vehículo de difusión del conocimiento comparable a las revistas internacionales de prestigio reconocido.
(…) Los desarrollos tecnológicos importantes cuyo reconocimiento sea demostrable.
(…) Los libros y capítulos de libros en cuya evaluación se tendrá en cuenta el número de citas cuando sea posible, el prestigio internacional de la editorial, los editores, la colección en la que se publica la obra y las reseñas en las revistas científicas especializadas.
Publicación y evaluación en CHS
No todas las disciplinas tienen el mismo patrón de
comportamiento
Ej. Geografía vs Psicología
Ej. Arqueología vs Filología
También los libros y capítulos tienen impacto
Book Citation Index (Thomson Reuters) ¿qué editoriales
cubrirá?
Factores de impacto en Humanidades como una
prueba más de que NO son el indicador definitivo
Ej. Factor de impacto. Filología clásica
ISSN Título de la revista Factor de impacto
1131-9062Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. Estudios Latinos 0.266
0013-6662Emerita. Revista de Lingüística y Filología Clásica 0.257
0018-0114Helmántica. Revista de Filología Clásica y Hebrea 0.167
1131-9070
Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. Estudios Griegos e
Indoeuropeos0.159
0213-9634 Minerva. Revista de Filología Clásica 0.150
0014-1453 Estudios clásicos 0.138
1578-7486 Revista de Estudios Latinos 0.136
0210-7570 Faventia 0.133
0213-1986Erytheia. Revista de Estudios Bizantinos Neogriegos 0.118
1131-8848
Florentia Iliberritana. Revista de Estudios de
Antigüedad Clásica0.118
1699-3225Exemplaria Classica. Journal of Classical Philology 0.082
0213-7674 Myrtia. Revista de Filología Clásica 0.024
Fuente: RESH (EPUC. EC3) epuc.cchs.csic.es/resh
Algunas preguntas finales
¿Estamos forzando los caminos de la investigación
en CHS?
¿Se ven condicionadas las líneas de investigación
por las exigencias de la evaluación científica?
CONCLUSIONES
Conclusiones
Necesidad de seguir contando con fuentes específicas para la evaluación de CHS
Necesidad de escuchar las reivindicaciones de la comunidad científica
Necesidad de coordinación entre los grupos de trabajo dedicados a la evaluación de la actividad científica
Necesidad de desarrollar metodologías para la evaluación de libros y capítulos de libros
G.I. especializados en evaluación de la ciencia
Peer review constante … y así debe ser.
MUCHAS GRACIAS