Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 102, Issue 1, pp 789–810 | Cite as

What factors affect the visibility of Argentinean publications in humanities and social sciences in Scopus? Some evidence beyond the geographic realm of research

  • Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez
  • Sandra Miguel
  • Félix de Moya-Anegón
Article

Abstract

Argentina´s patterns of publication in the humanities and social sciences were studied for the period 2003–2012, using the Scopus database and distinguishing the geographic realm of the research. The results indicate that “topics of national scope” have grown and gained international visibility. They can be broadly characterized as having Spanish as the language of publication, and a marked preference for single authorship; in contrast, the publication of “global topics”, not geographically limited, characteristically have English as the language of divulgation, and institutional collaboration is stronger and more consolidated. Citation is apparently not determined only by the geographic realm of research, but also by language of publication, co-authorship, and the profiles of the journals where published. These results could contribute to constructive reflection upon publishing policy. The existence of a community of journals that tolerates biased patterns may make researchers echo and perpetuate poor practices, constructing or adapting the channels of communication. Such results also prove useful as a point of reference when evaluation criteria are elaborated by scientific committees, as unsupervised promotion and evaluation patterns could become based on local or overly subjective precepts, disregarding the disciplinary practices of the international scientific community.

Keywords

Bibliometrics Publication patterns Citation Scientific collaboration Language of publication Journals Evaluation criteria Argentina Topics of national scope Topics of global scope Scopus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was made possible through financing by the Project PICT-2011-2183 “Argentina como objeto de estudio en la producción científica con visibilidad regional e internacional. Una aproximación al estudio del dominio temático argentino” funded by the Fondo para la Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (FONCYT) of Argentina. The authors appreciate the comments of the reviewers, which served to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript, as well as support in the statistical analysis of data offered by José Manuel Rojo (CSIC-UAE), and translating/editing of the manuscript by Jean Sanders.

References

  1. Abramo, G., & D’ Angelo, C. A. (2011). Evaluating research: From informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 87(3), 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araujo-Ruíz, J. A., Torricella-Morales, R. G., Van Hooydonk, G., & Arencibia-Jorge, R. (2005). Cuban scientific articles in ISI citation indexes and CubaCiencias databases (1988–2003). Scientometrics, 65(2), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernal, I. (2013). Open access and the changing landscape of research impact indicators: New roles for repositories. Publications, 1(2), 57–77.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonfiglioli, A., & Mari, E. (2000). La cooperación científico-tecnológica entre la Unión Europea y América Latina: El actual contexto internacional y el Programa Marco de la Unión Europea. Revista REDES, Buenos Aires, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, 7(15), 183–208.Google Scholar
  5. Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36(1), 3–72.Google Scholar
  6. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bornmann, L., Schier, H., Marx, W., & Daniel, H. (2012). What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality? Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cetto, A. M., & Hillerud, K. I. (1995). Publicaciones científicas en América Latina. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
  9. Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Benavent-Pérez, M., Miguel, S., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2012a). International collaboration in medical research in Latin America and the Caribbean (2003–2007). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(11), 2223–2238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., López-Illescas, C., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2012b). Biomedical scientific publication patterns in the Scopus database: A case study of Andalusia, Spain. ACIMED: Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud, 23(3), 219–237.Google Scholar
  11. Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Hassan-Montero, Y., González-Molina, A., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2010). New approach to the visualization of international scientific collaboration. Information Visualization, 9(4), 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collazo-Reyes, F. (2014). Growth of the number of indexed journals of Latin America and the Caribbean: The effect on the impact of each country. Scientometrics, 98, 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collazo-Reyes, F., Luna-Morales, M. E., Russell, J. M., & Pérez-Angón, M. A. (2008). Publication and citation patterns of Latin American and Caribbean journals in the SCI and SSCI from 1995 to 2004. Scientometrics, 75(1), 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2000). Partial orders and measures for language preferences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(12), 1123–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engels, T. C. E., Ossenblok, T. L. B., & Spruyt, E. H. J. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics, 93(2), 373–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. España, Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. Resolución de 15 de noviembre de (2013). de la Comisión Nacional Evaluadora de la Actividad Investigadora, por la que se publican los criterios específicos aprobados para cada uno de los campos de evaluación. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 21 de noviembre de 2013, núm. 279, 92880–92893.Google Scholar
  17. Fedderke, J. W. (2013). The objectivity of national research foundation peer review in South Africa assessment against bibliometric indexes. Scientometrics, 97(2), 177–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fernández-Quijada, D., Masip, P., & Bergillos, I. (2013). El precio de la internacionalidad: La dualidad en los patrones de publicación de los investigadores españoles en comunicación. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 36(2), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gauffriau, M., Larsen, P. O., & Maye, I. (2007). Publication, cooperation and productivity measures in scientific research. Scientometrics, 73(2), 175–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in International scientific Co-Authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., Thijs, B., & Schubert, A. (2006). A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy. Scientometrics, 67(2), 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gómez, I., Fernández, M. T., Zulueta, M. A., & Camí, J. (1995). Analysis of biomedical research in Spain. Research Policy, 24(3), 459–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guerrero Bote, V. P., Olmeda-Gómez, C., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2013). Quantifying the benefits of international scientific collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kreimer, P. (2000). Ciencia y periferia: Una lectura sociológica. In: M. Monserrat (Ed.), La ciencia en la Argentina entre siglos. Textos, contextos e instituciones (pp. 187–200). Buenos Aires: Manantial.Google Scholar
  26. Lancho-Barrantes, B. S., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2012). Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 481–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(1), 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leta, J. (2011). Growth of Brazilian science: A real internationalization or a matter of databases’coverage? In E. Noyons, P. Ngulube, & J. Leta (Eds.), Proceedings of 13th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 392–408). Durban: ISSI, Leiden University and University of Zululand.Google Scholar
  29. Luna-Morales, M. E., & Collazo-Reyes, F. (2007). Análisis histórico bibliométrico de las revistas latinoamericanas y caribeñas en los índices de la ciencia internacional 1961–2005. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 30(4), 523–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Michels, C., & Schmoch, U. (2012). The growth of science and database coverage. Scientometrics, 93(3), 831–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miguel, S. (2008). Aproximación cienciométrica al análisis y visualización del dominio científico argentino, 1990–2005. Granada: Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar
  32. Miguel, S. (2011). Revistas y producción científica de América Latina y el Caribe: Su visibilidad en SciELO, RedALyC y SCOPUS. Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología, 34(2), 187–199.Google Scholar
  33. Miguel, S., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2009). La ciencia argentina bajo la lupa de los indicadores cienciométricos: Una mirada crítica de la realidad científica argentina. La Plata: Ediciones Al Margen.Google Scholar
  34. Molteni, V., & Zulueta, M. A. (2002). Análisis de la visibilidad internacional de la producción científica argentina en las bases de datos Social Sciences Citation Index y Arts and Humanities Citation Index en la década de 1990–2000: Estudio bibliométrico. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 25(4), 455–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moya-Anegón, F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Corera-Álvarez, E., Muñoz-Fernández, F. J., & González-Molina, A. (2007). Coverage analysis of Scopus: A journal metric approach. Scientometrics, 73(1), 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moya-Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V., Bormann, L., & Moed, H. (2013). The research guarantors of scientific papers and the output counting: A promising new approach. Scientometrics, 97(2), 421–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ochoa-Henríquez, H. (2004). Visibilidad: El reto de las revistas científicas latinoamericanas. Opción—Universidad De Zulia, 20(43), 162–168.Google Scholar
  38. Osca Lluch, J., & Haba, J. (2005). Dissemination of Spanish social sciences and humanities journals. Journal of Information Science, 31(3), 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ossenblok, T. L. B., Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2014). Coauthorship of journal articles and book chapters in the social sciences and humanities (2000–2010). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,. doi: 10.1002/asi.Google Scholar
  40. Perianes-Rodríguez, A., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Olmeda-Gómez, C., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2009). Synthetic hybrid indicators based on scientific collaboration to quantify and evaluate individual research results. Journal of Informetrics, 3(2), 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rehn, C., & Kronman, U. (2008). Bibliometric handbook for Karolinska Institutet. Karolinska Institutet University Library. Version 1.05.Google Scholar
  42. Rodríguez-Yunta, L., & Giménez-Toledo, E. (2013). Fusión, coedición o reestructuración de revistas científicas en humanidades y ciencias sociales. El profesional de la Información, 22(1), 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Santa, S., & Herrero, V. (2010). Cobertura de la ciencia de América Latina y el Caribe en Scopus vs Web of Science. Investigación Bibliotecológica, 24(52), 13–27.Google Scholar
  44. Van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51(1), 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zitt, M., Perrot, F., & Barré, R. (1998). The transition from “National” to “Transnational” model and related measures of countries’ performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(1), 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sandra Miguel
    • 2
    • 3
  • Félix de Moya-Anegón
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Consejo Superior de Investigaciones CientíficasInstituto de Políticas y Bienes PúblicosMadridSpain
  2. 2.Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación, Instituto de Investigaciones en Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales - IdIHCS (UNLP-CONICET)Universidad Nacional de La PlataLa PlataArgentina
  3. 3.SCImago Research GroupMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations