On the evaluation methods for scientific journals
Today there is a huge interest and wide discussions in the academic world to find effective methods of evaluation of the impact of the work of the scientists. It is argued here that the impact of the information generated by researchers has relevance beyond a mere accounting of citations to academic...
| Váldodahkki: | |
|---|---|
| Materiálatiipa: | Online |
| Giella: | spa |
| Almmustuhtton: |
Instituto de Ecología, A.C.
2016
|
| Liŋkkat: | https://myb.ojs.inecol.mx/index.php/myb/article/view/453 |
| _version_ | 1799769203113197568 |
|---|---|
| author | Dávalos Sotelo, Raymundo |
| author_facet | Dávalos Sotelo, Raymundo |
| author_sort | Dávalos Sotelo, Raymundo |
| collection | MYB |
| description | Today there is a huge interest and wide discussions in the academic world to find effective methods of evaluation of the impact of the work of the scientists. It is argued here that the impact of the information generated by researchers has relevance beyond a mere accounting of citations to academic products. However, there remains the need to assess in a more immediate way the effect or influence of scientific work. The central argument of this contribution is that the number of citations generated by the engine Google Scholar (GS) represents a far more accurate and complete the work of individual researchers that FI impact Factor. Associated with GS, there is the concept of index h5. To see if there are any regularity in the proportion of citations between the two databases, a search for citations was made to articles for authors considered representative: Williams-Linera et al. and Yáñez-Arancibia et al. for being the most cited. The value of the coefficient of determination shows the extraordinary regularity of this relationship. In the case of the valuation of the journals, it is argued that the index h is the most appropriate to the JCR. We reiterate that the real impact of the research work is beyond the scope of academic work and is reflected in the use of information in remote areas of academia, but that have broad impact on society as for example, the information required to define the protected natural areas. |
| format | Online |
| id | oai:oai.myb.ojs.inecol.mx:article-453 |
| institution | Madera y Bosques |
| language | spa |
| publishDate | 2016 |
| publisher | Instituto de Ecología, A.C. |
| record_format | ojs |
| spelling | oai:oai.myb.ojs.inecol.mx:article-4532017-10-04T22:43:38Z On the evaluation methods for scientific journals Sobre las formas de evaluación de las revistas científicas Dávalos Sotelo, Raymundo Google Scholar index h5 index h JCR Web of Science Google Scholar índice h5 índice h JCR Web of Science Today there is a huge interest and wide discussions in the academic world to find effective methods of evaluation of the impact of the work of the scientists. It is argued here that the impact of the information generated by researchers has relevance beyond a mere accounting of citations to academic products. However, there remains the need to assess in a more immediate way the effect or influence of scientific work. The central argument of this contribution is that the number of citations generated by the engine Google Scholar (GS) represents a far more accurate and complete the work of individual researchers that FI impact Factor. Associated with GS, there is the concept of index h5. To see if there are any regularity in the proportion of citations between the two databases, a search for citations was made to articles for authors considered representative: Williams-Linera et al. and Yáñez-Arancibia et al. for being the most cited. The value of the coefficient of determination shows the extraordinary regularity of this relationship. In the case of the valuation of the journals, it is argued that the index h is the most appropriate to the JCR. We reiterate that the real impact of the research work is beyond the scope of academic work and is reflected in the use of information in remote areas of academia, but that have broad impact on society as for example, the information required to define the protected natural areas. En la actualidad hay un enorme interés y amplias discusiones en el medio académico para encontrar métodos eficaces de evaluación del impacto del trabajo de los científicos. Se argumenta aquí que el impacto de la información generada por los investigadores tiene relevancia más allá de una mera contabilidad de citas a los productos académicos. Sin embargo, sigue existiendo la necesidad de valorar de una manera más inmediata el efecto o la influencia del trabajo científico. El argumento central de esta contribución es que el número de citas generado por el motor Google Scholar (GS) representa una medida más precisa y completa del trabajo de los investigadores individuales que el Factor de Impacto FI. Asociado a GS existe el concepto del Índice h5. Para ver si hay alguna regularidad en la proporción de citas entre las dos bases de datos, se hizo una búsqueda de citas para artículos de autores considerados representativos para Madera y Bosques: Williams-Linera et al. y Yáñez-Arancibia et al. por ser de los más citados. El valor del coeficiente de determinación demuestra la extraordinaria regularidad de esta relación. Para el caso de la valoración de las revistas, se argumenta que el índice h es más apropiado que el JCR. Reiteramos que el impacto real del trabajo de investigación rebasa el ámbito del trabajo académico y se refleja en el uso de la información en áreas alejadas de los círculos académicos, pero que tienen amplia repercusión en la sociedad como por ejemplo, la información requerida para definir las áreas naturales protegidas. Instituto de Ecología, A.C. 2016-02-25 info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Artículo evaluado por pares application/pdf text/html https://myb.ojs.inecol.mx/index.php/myb/article/view/453 10.21829/myb.2015.213453 Madera y Bosques; Vol. 21 No. 3 (2015): Otoño Madera y Bosques; Vol. 21 Núm. 3 (2015): Otoño 2448-7597 1405-0471 spa https://myb.ojs.inecol.mx/index.php/myb/article/view/453/621 https://myb.ojs.inecol.mx/index.php/myb/article/view/453/633 Derechos de autor 2016 Madera y Bosques |
| spellingShingle | Dávalos Sotelo, Raymundo On the evaluation methods for scientific journals |
| title | On the evaluation methods for scientific journals |
| title_full | On the evaluation methods for scientific journals |
| title_fullStr | On the evaluation methods for scientific journals |
| title_full_unstemmed | On the evaluation methods for scientific journals |
| title_short | On the evaluation methods for scientific journals |
| title_sort | on the evaluation methods for scientific journals |
| url | https://myb.ojs.inecol.mx/index.php/myb/article/view/453 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT davalossoteloraymundo ontheevaluationmethodsforscientificjournals AT davalossoteloraymundo sobrelasformasdeevaluaciondelasrevistascientificas |
