Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo

Altmetrics: New Indicators for Scientific Communication in Web 2.0

En el presente trabajo se realiza una revision de las altmetrics o indicadores alternativos. Este concepto se define como la creacion y estudio de nuevos indicadores, basados en la web 2.0, para el analisis de la actividad cientifica y academica. La idea que subyace es que, por ejemplo, las menciones en blogs, el numero de tuits o el de personas que guardan un articulo en su gestor de referencias puede ser una medida valida del uso y repercusion de las publicaciones cientificas. En este sentido, estas medidas se han situado en el centro del debate de los estudios bibliometricos cobrando especial relevancia. En el articulo se ilustran en primer lugar las plataformas e indicadores principales de este tipo de medidas, para posteriormente estudiar un conjunto de trabajos del ambito de la comunicacion, comparando el numero de citas recibidas con sus indicadores 2.0. Los resultados senalan que los articulos mas citados de la disciplina en los ultimos anos tambien presentan indicadores significativamente mas elevados de altmetrics. Seguidamente se realiza un repaso por los principales estudios empiricos realizados, deteniendonos en las correlaciones entre indicadores bibliometricos y alternativos. Se finaliza, a modo de reflexion, senalando las principales limitaciones y el papel que las altmetrics pueden desempenar a la hora de captar la repercusion de la investigacion en las plataformas de la web 2.0.In this paper we review the socalled altmetrics or alternative metrics. This concept raises from the development of new indicators based on Web 2.0, for the evaluation of the research and academic activity. The basic assumption is that variables such as mentions in blogs, number of twits or of researchers bookmarking a research paper for instance, may be legitimate indicators for measuring the use and impact of scientific publications. In this sense, these indicators are currently the focus of the bibliometric community and are being discussed and debated. We describe the main platforms and indicators and we analyze as a sample the Spanish research output in Communication Studies. Comparing traditional indicators such as citations with these new indicators. The results show that the most cited papers are also the ones with a highest impact according to the altmetrics. We conclude pointing out the main shortcomings these metrics present and the role they may play when measuring the research impact through 2.0 platforms.

Reviewers’ Ratings and Bibliometric Indicators: Hand in Hand When Assessing Over Research Proposals?

Background The peer review system has been traditionally challenged due to its many limitations especially for allocating funding. Bibliometric indicators may well present themselves as a complement. Objective We analyze the relationship between peers’ ratings and bibliometric indicators for Spanish researchers in the 2007 National R&D Plan for 23 research fields. Methods and Materials We analyze peers’ ratings for 2333 applications. We also gathered principal investigators’ research output and impact and studied the differences between accepted and rejected applications. We used the Web of Science database and focused on the 2002-2006 period. First, we analyzed the distribution of granted and rejected proposals considering a given set of bibliometric indicators to test if there are significant differences. Then, we applied a multiple logistic regression analysis to determine if bibliometric indicators can explain by themselves the concession of grant proposals. Results 63.4% of the applications were funded. Bibliometric indicators for accepted proposals showed a better previous performance than for those rejected; however the correlation between peer review and bibliometric indicators is very heterogeneous among most areas. The logistic regression analysis showed that the main bibliometric indicators that explain the granting of research proposals in most cases are the output (number of published articles) and the number of papers published in journals that belong to the first quartile ranking of the Journal Citations Report. Discussion Bibliometric indicators predict the concession of grant proposals at least as well as peer ratings. Social Sciences and Education are the only areas where no relation was found, although this may be due to the limitations of the Web of Science’s coverage. These findings encourage the use of bibliometric indicators as a complement to peer review in most of the analyzed areas.

Altmetrics: nuevos indicadores para la comunicación científica en la Web 2.0

En el presente trabajo se realiza una revision de las altmetrics o indicadores alternativos. Este concepto se define como la creacion y estudio de nuevos indicadores, basados en la web 2.0, para el analisis de la actividad cientifica y academica. La idea que subyace es que, por ejemplo, las menciones en blogs, el numero de tuits o el de personas que guardan un articulo en su gestor de referencias puede ser una medida valida del uso y repercusion de las publicaciones cientificas. En este sentido, estas medidas se han situado en el centro del debate de los estudios bibliometricos cobrando especial relevancia. En el articulo se ilustran en primer lugar las plataformas e indicadores principales de este tipo de medidas, para posteriormente estudiar un conjunto de trabajos del ambito de la comunicacion, comparando el numero de citas recibidas con sus indicadores 2.0. Los resultados senalan que los articulos mas citados de la disciplina en los ultimos anos tambien presentan indicadores significativamente mas elevados de altmetrics. Seguidamente se realiza un repaso por los principales estudios empiricos realizados, deteniendonos en las correlaciones entre indicadores bibliometricos y alternativos. Se finaliza, a modo de reflexion, senalando las principales limitaciones y el papel que las altmetrics pueden desempenar a la hora de captar la repercusion de la investigacion en las plataformas de la web 2.0.In this paper we review the socalled altmetrics or alternative metrics. This concept raises from the development of new indicators based on Web 2.0, for the evaluation of the research and academic activity. The basic assumption is that variables such as mentions in blogs, number of twits or of researchers bookmarking a research paper for instance, may be legitimate indicators for measuring the use and impact of scientific publications. In this sense, these indicators are currently the focus of the bibliometric community and are being discussed and debated. We describe the main platforms and indicators and we analyze as a sample the Spanish research output in Communication Studies. Comparing traditional indicators such as citations with these new indicators. The results show that the most cited papers are also the ones with a highest impact according to the altmetrics. We conclude pointing out the main shortcomings these metrics present and the role they may play when measuring the research impact through 2.0 platforms.

Tracking the performance of an R&D programme in the biomedical sciences

This article aims at offering an evaluation framework of an RD however, an increase in the share of papers mention is observed 2 years after it was launched. We suggest that by finding the point at which the share of mentions stabilizes may be a good strategy to identify the complete fulfilment of these types of R&D policies.