Almudena Mangas-Vega
ABSTRACT
Currently there is a problem when assessing monographs: lack of method and clear indicators to measure the prestige and quality of the publishers and their works. There are some systems and tools that attempt to solve these deficiencies, but there is still much work to do, because this problem affects negatively on the perception that people have of researchers and institutions.
On the other hand, to generate any evaluation system in the current landscape of scientific publishing, the technical needs of both publishers and resources and the science assessment trends must be taken into account by specific criteria and indicators and, as far as possible, the tool generated should be multifunctional for all kinds of scientific publication. This paper tackles the steps to Creating quality standards for scientific content in digital environments through the development of an utility model with the focus on the work done during the second academic year of the Phd program.
- Trzesniak, P. 2014. Hoje vou escrever um artigo científico: a construção e a transmissão do conhecimento, in: Koller, S. H.; Couto, M. C. P. P.; Hohendorff, J. V.: Manual de produção científica. Porto Alegre/RS: Penso. ISBN: 9788565848916.Google Scholar
- Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J. Y Tejada-Artigas, C.M. 2015. Review of national and international initiatives on books and book publishers assessment. El profesional de la información, 24,6, 705--716.Google Scholar
- Borrego, Á., & Urbano, C. 2006. La evaluación de revistas científicas en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades. Información, cultura y sociedad, 14, 11--27.Google Scholar
- Barsky, O. 2014. La evaluación de la ciencia, la crisis del sistema internacional de revistas científicas y propuestas de políticas. Debate Universitario CAEE-UAI, 3, 5, 109--124.Google Scholar
- Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C. Y Glade, T. 2016. On the bibliometric coordinates of four different research fields in Geography. Scientometrics, 107, 2, 873--897. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mangas-Vega, A. 2014. Approach to the Evaluation of Electronic Scientific Monographs. In García Peñalvo, F. J. TEEM '14 2nd International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality Salamanca, Spain --- October 01 - 03, 2014. ACM New York, NY, USA ©2014 pp 537--540. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Giménez-Toledo, E. Y Román-Román, A. 2009. Assessment of humanities and social sciences monographs through their publishers: a review and a study towards a model of evaluation. Research Evaluation, 18, 3, 201--213.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Grinev, A. V. 2017. The problem of citation in the humanities. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 87, 1, 83--86.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Boero, F. 2015. We need monographs, and revisions. Italian Journal of Zoology, 82 (2), 149--150.Google Scholar
- Rodríguez Yunta, L; Giménez Toledo, E. 2005. Lo que los usuarios piensan de las bases de datos bibliográficas y no se atreven a decir. ¿Es posible un diseño centrado en el usuario? In IX Jornadas Españolas de Documentación. Fesabid. 14-15 abril, 2005.Google Scholar
- Wolfe Thompson, J. 2002. The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship. Libri 52, 121--136.Google Scholar
- Cordón-García, J. A., Gómez-Díaz, R., Alonso-Arévalo, J., & Alonso-Berrocal, J. L. 2014. El ecosistema del libro electrónico universitario (2a aum y rev ed.). Salamanca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
- Kousha, K., Thelwall, M. Y Rezaie, S. 2011. Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 62, 11, 2147--2164. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-Garcia, N., Jiménez-Contreras, E., & Fuente-Gutiérrez, E. 2015. El ranking BiPublishers: Principales resultados y problemas metodológicos en la construcción de rankings de editoriales académicas. Revista española de Documentación Científica, 38, 4, 111.Google Scholar
- Gorraiz, J., Purnell, P. J. Y Glänzel, W. 2013. Opportunities for and limitations of the book citation index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 7, 1388--1398.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mangas Vega, A. 2014. Approach to the Evaluation of Electronic Scientific Monographs In: García Peñalvo, F. J. TEEM '14 2nd International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality Salamanca, Spain --- October 01 - 03. ACM New York, NY, USA pp 537--540. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Creating quality standards for scientific content in digital environments through the development of a utility model (II)
Recommendations
Creating quality standards for scientific content in digital environments through the development of a utility model
TEEM '16: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing MulticulturalityCurrently there is a problem when assessing monographs: lack of method and clear indicators to measure the prestige and quality of the publishers and their works. There are precedents that attempt to solve these deficiencies, but they have biases. ...
Approach to the evaluation of electronic scientific monographs
TEEM '14: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing MulticulturalityThe article analyzes the status of evaluation of monographs, especially digital monographs. Work on standards for electronic digital monographs, advances in evaluation of the quality of academic monographs and how these are being used for the ...
Scientific Quality Index: a composite size-independent metric compared with h-index for 480 medical researchers
The goal of this study was to measure the scientific output of 480 authors--leaders in 12 selected branches of medicine, using the Hirsch index (the h-index) and a newly proposed Scientific Quality Index (SQI). Data were collected from the Scopus ...
Comments