Aurora Calderón-Martínez

University institutional repositories: competitive environment and their role as communication media of scientific knowledge

Are institutional repositories mere warehouses for digital documents or are they in fact establishing themselves as a rigorous option for the spread of scientific knowledge? This study analyses the competitive environment of the Top100 university repositories, defined as leaders in terms of market participation and penetration. The study also analyses the basic functionalities of preservation and diffusion of academic production through factors related to the prestige of the repositories and of the institutions that operate them. The results show that repositories with a larger digital academic supply are associated with the production of demonstrated scientific rigor.

Leading emerging markets: capturing and diffusing scientific knowledge through research-oriented repositories

In this paper we investigate the BRIC and CIVETS economies from a new perspective, focusing on the analysis of one element linked to the knowledge economy. Concretely, we analyze the research-oriented repositories of those emerging markets as instruments that contribute to capture and diffuse scientific knowledge. For this end, we carry out a competitive analysis that allows us to study the BRIC and CIVETS repositories using their respective participation shares in terms of content supply, web visibility and size. The results reveal the absolute leadership position that the BRIC economy has over the CIVETS economy in terms of disseminating scientific knowledge as well as that this could weaken in a near future. Furthermore, two repositories linked to universities in Brazil and South Africa are the leaders in those emerging economies. Putting aside the leadership position, India and China are over and above the rest of the BRIC countries, meanwhile in the case of the CIVETS countries Indonesia has a relevant position.

Peer-review: Overconfidence bias in a conference setting

The present study examines whether overconfidence bias is moderated by the type of manuscript submitted to conferences. The preliminary results suggest that the type of manuscript reviewed by the reviewer, either work in progress or completed work, makes overconfidence bias in peer-reviews of conference papers more or less visible due to potential bias against work in progress.