Análisis estratégico de la producción científica española por camposCiencias Naturales, Médicas y de la Vida

  1. Luque-Martínez, Teodoro 1
  2. Luque-Raya, Ignacio M. 2
  1. 1 Departamento de Comercialización e Investigación de Mercados. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales. Universidad de Granada
  2. 2 Departamento Comercialización e Investigación de Mercados. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas de Melilla. Universidad de Granada
Revista:
Revista española de documentación científica

ISSN: 0210-0614,  1988-4621

Año de publicación: 2023

Volumen: 46

Número: 4

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3989/REDC.2023.4.1409 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista española de documentación científica

Resumen

La investigación es una misión fundamental de la universidad que determina la producción científica, que, a su vez, está asociada al desarrollo social y económico. Los indicadores bibliométricos proporcionan una medida de la producción científica. Por otro lado, la medida de dicha producción distinguiendo por campos y especialidades es mucho más útil y permite conocer interesantes detalles para la gestión, tanto de una universidad como de un sistema universitario. Utilizando los indicadores bibliométricos del ranking ARWU, se analiza por campos y especialidades con especial énfasis en las universidades españolas. Se identifican los puntos fuertes y débiles por especialidad en cuanto a volumen y calidad de la producción, impacto, reconocimiento y colaboración internacional, así como el posicionamiento internacional de las universidades españolas. De todo ello se derivan recomendaciones para la gestión.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Allik, J. (2013). Factors affecting bibliometric indicators of scientific quality. Trames: A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 17(3), 199. https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2013.3.01
  • Bornmann, L., y Leydesdorff, L. (2013a). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 286-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.003
  • Bornmann, L., y Leydesdorff, L. (2013b). Macro-indicators of citation impacts of six prolific countries: InCites data and the statistical significance of trends. PloS one, 8(2), e56768. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056768 PMid:23418600 PMCid:PMC3572076
  • Bornmann, L., y Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215-2222. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329
  • Bordons, M; Sancho, R.; Morillo, F.; Gómez, I. (2010) Perfil de la actividad científica de las universidades españolas en cuatro áreas temáticas: un enfoque multifactorial. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 33 (1), 9-33. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2010.1.718
  • Chankseliani, M., Lovakov, A., y Pislyakov, V. (2021). A big picture: bibliometric study of academic publications from post-Soviet countries. Scientometrics, 126(10), 8701-8730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04124-5
  • Diem, A., y Wolter, S. C. (2013). The use of bibliometrics to measure research performance in education sciences. Research in higher education, 54(1), 86-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9264-5
  • Docampo, D. (2010). On using the Shanghai ranking to assess the investigation performance of university systems. Scientometrics, 86 (1), 77-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0280-y
  • Docampo, D. (2013). Reproducibility of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities results. Scientometrics, 94(2), 567-587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0801-y
  • Etzkowitz, H., y Leydesdorff, L. (1998). The endless transition: A ''triple helix'' of university-industry-government relations. Minerva, 36, 203-208. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004348123030
  • Greco, A., Bornmann, L., y Marx, W. (2012). Bibliometric analysis of scientific development in countries of the Union of South American Nations (Unasur). Profesional de la Información, 21(6), 607-612. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2012.nov.07
  • Hodonu-Wusu, J. O., y Lazarus, G. N. (2018). Major trends in LIS research: A bibliometric analysis. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1. Disponible en: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/189483457.pdf.
  • Hood, W. W., y Wilson, C. S. (2003). Informetric studies using databases: Opportunities and challenges. Scientometrics, 58(3), 587-608. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000006882.47115.c6
  • Hu, Z., Tian, W., Xu, S., Zhang, C., y Wang, X. (2018). Four pitfalls in normalizing citation indicators: An investigation of ESI's selection of highly cited papers. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1133-1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.006
  • Katz, J. S. (2005). Scale-independent bibliometric indicators. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 3(1), 24-28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15366359mea0301_3
  • King, D.A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430 (15), 311-316. https://doi.org/10.1038/430311a PMid:15254529
  • Korevaar, J. (1996). Validation of bibliometric indicators in the field of mathematics. Scientometrics, 37(1), 117-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02093488
  • Li, Y., Xu, Z., Wang, X., y Wang, X. (2020). A bibliometric analysis on deep learning during 2007-2019. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 11(12), 2807-2826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-020-01152-0
  • Li, F., Yi, Y., Guo, X., y Qi, W. (2012): Performance evaluation of research universities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: based on a two-dimensional approach. Scientometrics, 90:531-542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0544-1
  • Liu, N. C., y Cheng, Y. (2005). The Academic Ranking of World Universities. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 127-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720500260116
  • Luque-Martínez, T. (2015). Actividad investigadora y contexto económico. El caso de las universidades públicas españolas. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 38(1), e076-e076. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2015.1.1135
  • Luque-Martínez, T., del Barrio-García, S., Doña-Toledo, L., y Faraoni, N. (2022). Value generation and economic impact of the University of Granada. Studies in Higher Education, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2138848
  • Luque-Martínez, T., y del Barrio-García, S. (2016). Constructing a synthetic indicator of research activity. Scientometrics, 108(3), 1049-1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2037-8
  • Ming, H. W., Hui, Z. F., y Yuh, S. H. (2011). Comparison of universities' scientific performance using bibliometric indicators. Malaysian Journal of Library yAmp; Information Science, 16(2), 1-19. Disponible en: https://jati.um.edu.my/index.php/MJLIS/article/view/6693.
  • Moed, H.F. (2000). Bibliometric Indicators Reflect Publication and Management Strategies. Scientometrics 47, 323-346. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005695111622
  • Moed, H., Burger, W., Frankfort, J., y Van Raan, A. (1985). The application of bibliometric indicators: Important field-and time-dependent factors to be considered. Scientometrics, 8(3-4), 177-203. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016935
  • Morillo, F., Bordons, M., y Gómez, I. (2001). An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 51(1), 203-222. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010529114941
  • Nagarkar, S., Veer, C., y Kumbhar, R. (2015). Bibliometric Analysis of Papers Published by Faculty of Life Science Departments of Savitribai Phule Pune University during 1999-2013. DESIDOC Journal of Library y Information Technology, 35(5) 368-375. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.35.5.8429
  • Nederhof, A.J., Zwaan, R.A., De Bruin, R.E. et al. (1989). Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and beha vioural sciences: A comparative study. Scientometrics 15, 423-435. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017063
  • Perez-Esparrells, C. y Orduna-Malea, E. (2018). Do the Technical Universities exhibit distinct behaviour in global university rankings? A Times Higher Education (THE) case study, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 48: 97-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2018.04.007
  • Pislyakov, V. (2022). On some properties of medians, percentiles, baselines, and thresholds in empirical bibliometric analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 16(4), 101322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101322
  • Potter, R. W., Szomszor, M., y Adams, J. (2022). Comparing standard, collaboration and fractional CNCI at the institutional level: Consequences for performance evaluation. Scientometrics, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04303-y
  • Sun, Y., y Liu, F. (2012) Measuring international trade-related technology spillover: a composite approach of network analysis and information theory. Scientometrics, 94, 963-979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0860-0
  • Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research. Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible. Scientometrics, 66(1), 133-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0010-7
  • Van Raan, A. F. (2006). Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators: Research group indicator distributions and correlations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 408-430. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20284
  • Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., y Zimmermann, E. (2002). Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology-I: The multiple uses of bibliometric indicators. International Journal of management reviews, 4(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00083
  • Waltman, L., y Schreiber, M. (2013). On the calculation of percentile‐based bibliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 64(2), 372-379. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22775
  • Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., van Eck, N. J., et al. (2012). The Leiden ranking 2011-2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2419-2432. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22708
  • Wang, X., y Zhang, Z. (2020). Improving the reliability of short-term citation impact indicators by taking into account the correlation between short-and long-term citation impact. Journal of Informetrics, 14(2), 101019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101019
  • Wu, Y., y Liu, N. C. (2017). Academic ranking of world universities (ARWU): Methodologies and trends. In Research Analytics (pp. 95-120). Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315155890-6
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet