Study of the Most Valuable Researcher: Bibliometric Indicators and Collaboration Networks
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26439/ing.ind2021.n41.5208Keywords:
most valuable researcher, bibliometric indicator, collaborative networks, scientific production, WoS, H indexAbstract
This work seeks to find the Most Valuable Researcher (MVR) within the academics of Faculties of Engineering and Business of a University in Chile, applying bibliometric indicators and collaboration networks. The methodology consisted in reviewing the literature referring to similar bibliometric studies from open databases, such as SciELO and Google Scholar. As a result of the study, a model was proposed based on the main bibliometric indicators used, with it was possible to filter the researchers from both faculties and establish a ranking with those academics with the best results and the current situation facing the research in each unit. This ranking indicates the standard that the most valuable researchers have, identifying that the variable “collaborative networks” has a direct relationship with the productivity of researchers and, also, the existence of correlations with indicators of network grade, co-authorship, and research area. This work seeks to deliver recommendations on the quantity and quality of scientific production within the University. Future research should include other databases and expand the scope by region, country, and area of expertise, and consider other factors such as the age of the researcher, forms of citation, and characteristics by area of knowledge, as well as deepen the concept of MVR, and its virtuous effect on the productivity of an academic unit.
Downloads
References
Bordons, M. (1999). Evaluación de la actividad científica a través de indicadores bibliométricos. Revista Española de Cardiología, 52, 790-800.
Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). A Hirsch-type index for journals. The Scientist, 19, 8.
Cargill, M., & Burgess, S. (Eds.) (2017). Publishing research in English as an additional language: Practices, pathways and potentials. University of Adelaide Press.
Chaparro, N., & Rojas-Galeano, S. (2021) Revealing the Research Landscape of Master’s Degrees via Bibliometric Analyses. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 5351. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5351
Cole, F. J., & Eales, N. B. (1917). The history of comparative anatomy: Part I.—A statistical analysis of the literature. Science Progress, 11, 578-596.
Delgado, E., & Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. (2012). Google Scholar Metrics: an Unreliable Tool for Assessing Scientific Journals. El Profesional de la Información, 21, 419-427.
Franco-López, A. F., Sanz-Valero, J., & Fernández, J. M. C. (2016). Publicar en castellano, o en cualquier otro idioma que no sea inglés, negativo para el factor de impacto y citaciones. Journal of Negative and No Positive Results, 1, 65-70.
García, A. (2013). Las redes de colaboración científica y su efecto en la productividad. Un análisis bibliométrico. Investigación Bibliotecológica, 27, 159-175.
Gingras, Y. (1996). Bibliometric analysis of funded research. A feasibility study. Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST), Canadá.
Gross, P. L., & Gross, E. M. (1927). College libraries and chemical education. Science, 66, 385-389.
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison. Scientometrics, 106, 787-804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
Hulme, E. W. (1923). Statistical bibliography in relation to the growth of modern civilization. Grafton.
Jacsó, P. (2008). The Pros and Cons of Computing the h-Index Using Web of Science. Online Information Review, 32, 673-688.
King, J. (1987). A Review of Bibliometric and Other Science Indicators and their Role in Research Evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13, 261-276.
Mitra, P. (2006). Hirsch-Type Indices for Ranking Institutions Scientific Research Output. Current Science, 91, 1439.
Okubo, Y. (1997), Indicateurs bibliométriques et analyse des systèmes de recherché, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín Martín, A., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2015). Aplicaciones métricas de Google Scholar para la evaluación del impacto científico. En IV Jornadas de Intercambio y Reflexión acerca de la Investigación en Bibliotecología, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina, 1-12.
Patra, S. K., Bhattacharya, P., & Verma, N. (2006). Bibliometric Study of Literature on Bibliometrics. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 26. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.26.1.3672
Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25, 348–349.
Rinia, E. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Van Vuren, H. G., & Van Raan, A. F. (1998). Comparative Analysis of a Set of Bibliometric Indicators and Central Peer Review Criteria: Evaluation of Condensed Matter Physics in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 27, 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00026-2
Roig-Tierno, N., Gonzalez-Cruz, T. F., & Llopis-Martinez, J. (2017). An Overview of Qualitative Comparative Analysis: A Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2, 15–23.
Roldan, C. S., Chaparro, N., & Rojas-Galeano, S. (2019). Análisis bibliométrico de la Revista Ingeniería (2010-2017). Ingeniería, 24(2), 96-115. https://revistas.udistrital.edu.co/index.php/reving/article/view/14678
Schauss, M. A. (1998). Disease indicator analysis system U.S. Patent No. 5,746,204, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.Schubert, A., & Glänzel, W. (2007). A Systematic Analysis of Hirsch-Type Indices for Journals. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2006.12.002
Sengupta, I. N. (1992). Bibliometrics, Informetrics, Scientometrics and Librametrics: an Overview. Libri, 42, 75–98.
White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a Discipline: An Author Co‐Citation Analysis of Information Science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 327–355.
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18, 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
