La evaluación de la investigación científica: una aproximación teórica desde la Cienciometría

Arencibia Jorge, Ricardo and De-Moya-Anegón, Félix La evaluación de la investigación científica: una aproximación teórica desde la Cienciometría. ACIMED, 2008, vol. 17, n. 4. [Journal article (Unpaginated)]

[img] PDF
Artículo-Arencibia-Moya.pdf
Download (128kB)

English abstract

The evaluation of the scientific activity is an essential element for all the programs of research, technology and development implemented in a society. Scientometrics has contributed to the development of indicators that constitute key tools in the management of scientific and technological policies, and in the processes of strategic decision-making. The current paper is an analysis of the different approaches to the research evaluation from the scientometric perspective. Topics related to the determination of the research quality, the qualitative value of citation analysis, the use of scientometrics indicators in evaluative assessments, the collaboration networks as patterns of scientific development, and the domain analysis as theoretical support to scientometric studies for science evaluation are dealt with. In the XXI century, the strategies were directed to the search of alternatives that allowed the perception of the qualitative dimension inherent in science communication processes, through the use of relative indicators and information visualization techniques, and starting from the implicit recognition of the social and economic conditions where the scientific activity was developed. It is necessary the revision of the scientometric indicators used, as well as the creation of strong information systems to register and process the national scientific production, with the aim to develop evaluative tools that accelerate its growth and improve its visibility and position in the context of the world scientific activity.

Spanish abstract

La evaluación de la actividad científica es un elemento imprescindible para todos los programas de investigación, tecnología y desarrollo que se implementan en una sociedad. La cienciometría ha contribuido al desarrollo de indicadores que constituyen herramientas clave en la gestión de la política científica y tecnológica, y en los procesos de toma de decisiones estratégicas. Se realiza un análisis de las diferentes aproximaciones a la evaluación de la investigación desde la perspectiva cienciométrica. Se tratan temas relacionados con la determinación de la calidad de una investigación, el valor cualitativo de los análisis de citas, la implementación de indicadores cienciométricos con fines evaluativos, las redes de colaboración como elementos catalizadores del desarrollo científico y el análisis de dominio como soporte teórico de los estudios cienciométricos para la evaluación de la ciencia. En el siglo XXI, las estrategias estaban dirigidas a la búsqueda de alternativas que permitieran la percepción de la dimensión cualitativa inherente a los procesos de comunicación de la ciencia, mediante el empleo de indicadores relativos y técnicas de presentación de la información que partían del reconocimiento tácito de las condiciones socioeconómicas donde se desarrollaba la actividad científica. Es necesaria la revisión de los indicadores cienciométricos utilizados, así como el fortalecimiento de los sistemas de información encargados de registrar y procesar la producción científica, con el objetivo de desarrollar instrumentos evaluativos que aceleren el crecimiento de la producción científica a nivel nacional y mejoren su visibilidad y posicionamiento en el contexto de la actividad científica mundial.

Item type: Journal article (Unpaginated)
Keywords: Evaluación de la investigación, política científica, cienciometría, indicadores cienciometricos, análisis de citas, redes de colaboración, análisis de dominio, research evaluation, scientific policy, scientometrics, scientometric indicators, citation analysis, collaboration networks, domain analysis.
Subjects: A. Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information. > AB. Information theory and library theory.
B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
Depositing user: Ricardo Arencibia
Date deposited: 22 May 2008
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:11
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/11603

References

Geisler E. The measurement of scientific activity: Research directions in linking philosophy of science and metrics of science and technology outputs. Scientometrics. 2005;62(2):269-84.

Kostoff RN. The metrics of science and technology. Scientometrics. 2001;50(2):353-61.

Snizek WE. Some Observations on the Use of Bibliometric Indicators in the Assignment of University Chairs. Scientometrics. 1995;32(2):117-20.

Debackere K, Glanzel W. Using a bibliometric approach to support research policy making: The case of the Flemish BOF-key. Scientometrics. 2004;59(2):253-76.

Nederhof AJ. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics. 2005;66(1):81-100.

Hjorland B. Domain analysis in information science - Eleven approaches - traditional as well as innovative. J Doc. 2002;58(4):422-62.

Nagpaul PS, Roy S. Constructing a multi-objective measure of research performance. Scientometrics. 2003;56(3):383-402.

Van Raan AFJ. Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics. 2005;62(1):133-43.

Martínez E, Albornoz M. Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología: estado del arte y perspectivas. Caracas: Nueva Sociedad-UNESCO, 1998.

Macías Chapula CA. Papel de de informetría y de la cienciometría y su perspectiva nacional e internacional. ACIMED. 2001;9(Suppl.):35-41.

Russell J. Obtención de indicadores bibliométricos a partir de la utilización de las herramientas tradicionales de información. VIII Congreso internacional de la Información INFO´2004; 2004; Ciudad de La Habana, 12 al 16 de abril; 2004.

Sancho R. Indicadores bibliométricos utilizados en la evaluación de la ciencia y la técnología. Revisión bibliográfica. Revista Española de Documentación Científica. 1990;13(3-4):842-65.

Spinak E. Diccionario enciclopédico de bibliometría, cienciometría e informetría. Caracas: UNESCO, 1996.

Carpenter MP, Gibb F, Harris M, Irvine J, Martin BR, Narin F. Bibliometric Profiles for British Academic-Institutions - an Experiment to Develop Research Output Indicators. Scientometrics. 1988;14(3-4):213-33.

Kostoff RN. Federal, Research Impact Assessment - Axioms, Approaches, Applications. Scientometrics. 1995;34(2):163-206.

Warner J. A critical review of the application of citation studies to the Research Assessment Exercises. J Inf Sci. 2000;26(6):453-9.

Bence V, Oppenheim C. The influence of peer review on the research assessment exercise. J Inf Sci. 2004;30(4):347-68.

CINDOC. Proyecto de obtención de indicadores de producción científica de la Comunidad de Madrid (PIPCYT). Madrid: Centro de Información y Documentación Científica, 2005.

van Leeuwen TN, Visser MS, Moed HF, Nederhof TJ, van Raan AFJ. Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics. 2003;57(2):257-80.

Martin BR. The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics. 1996;36(3):343-62.

Moed HF. Differences in the construction of SCI based bibliometric indicators among various producers: A first overview. Scientometrics. 1996;35(2):177-91.

Glanzel W. The need for standards in bibliometric research and technology. Scientometrics. 1996;35(2):167-76.

Braun T, Schubert A. Dimensions of scientometric indicator datafiles - World science in 1990-1994. Scientometrics. 1997;38(1):175-204.

Gómez Caridad I, Fernández Muñoz MT, Bordons Gangas M, Morillo Ariza F. La producción científica española en medicina en los años 1994-1999. Rev Clin Esp. 2004;204:75-88.

FECYT. Indicadores bibliométricos de la actividad científica española. Granada: Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología 2004.

Negraes Brisolla S. Indicadores para apoyar la toma de decisiones. ACIMED. 2000;9(Suppl.):126-30.

RICYT. El Estado de la Ciencia 2006 [En línea]. Disponible en: http://www.ricyt.edu.ar/interior/interior.asp?Nivel1=6&Nivel2=5&IdDifusion=20 [Consultado: 7 de febrero 2007].

Krauskopf M, Vera MI, Krauskopf V, Welljamsdorof A. A Citationist Perspective on Science in Latin-America and the Caribbean, 1981 - 1993. Scientometrics. 1995;34(1):3-25.

Zumelzu E. Mainstream engineering publishing in Latin America: The Chilean experience. Scientometrics. 1997;40(1):3-12.

Glanzel W, Leta J, Thijs B. Science in Brazil. Part 1: A macro-level comparative study. Scientometrics. 2006;67(1):67-86.

Koljatic M, Silva M. The international publication productivity of Latin American countries in the economics and business administration fields. Scientometrics. 2001;51(2):381-94.

Ortiz Rivera LA, Sanz Casado E, Suarez Balseiro CA. Scientific production in Puerto Rico in science and technology during the period 1990 to 1998. Scientometrics. 2000;49(3):403-18.

Miguel S, Moya Anegón F, Herrero Solanas V. Aproximación metodológica para la identificación del perfil y patrones de colaboración de dominios científicos universitarios. Revista Española de Documentación Científica. 2006;29(1):36-55.

Núñez Jover J. La ciencia y la tecnología como procesos sociales. Lo que la educación científica no debería olvidar [En línea]. Disponible en: http://www.oei.es/salactsi/nunez00.htm [Consultado: 7 de febrero 2007].

Aksnes DW, Taxt RE. Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university. Res Evaluat. 2004;13(1):33-41.

Rinia EJ, van Leeuwen TN, van Vuren HG, van Raan AFJ. Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria - Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands. Res Policy. 1998;27(1):95-107.

So CYK. Citation ranking versus expert judgment in evaluating communication scholars: Effects of research specialty size and individual prominence. Scientometrics. 1998;41(3):325-33.

Hernon P, Schwartz C. Peer review revisited. Libr Infor Sci Res. 2006;28(1):1-3.

Stirling DA. Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2001;52(11):984-5.

White MD. Editorial peer review, its strengths and weaknesses. Libr Infor Sci Res. 2001;23(4):371-2.

Hernon PP, Schwartz CC. Peer review. Libr Infor Sci Res. 2001;23(1):1-3.

Pierce SJ. Silencing Scientists and Scholars in other fields: Power, paradigm controls, peer review and scholarly communication. Libr Infor Sci Res. 1999;21(3):415-7.

Sanz Menéndez L. Evaluación de la investigación y sistema de ciencia [En línea]. Disponible en: www.iesam.csic.es/doctrab2/dt-0407.pdf [Consultado: 7 de febrero 2007].

Garcia-Zorita C, Martin-Moreno C, Lascurain-Sanchez ML, Sanz-Casado E. Institutional addresses in the Web of Science: the effects on scientific evaluation. J Inf Sci. 2006;32(4):378-83.

Galvez C, Moya-Anegon F. The unification of institutional addresses applying parametrized finite-state graphs (P-FSG). Scientometrics. 2006;69(2):323-45.

Ahmed SMZ, McKnight C, Oppenheim C. A study of users' performance and satisfaction with the Web of Science IR interface. J Inf Sci. 2004;30(5):459-68.

Torricella-Morales RG, Van Hooydonk G, Araujo-Ruiz JA. Citation analysis of cuban research. Part 1. A case study: the Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science. Scientometrics. 2000;47(2):413-26.

Persson O, Glanzel W, Danell R. Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics. 2004;60(3):421-32.

Vinkler P. Relations of relative scientometric indicators. Scientometrics. 2003;58(3):687-94.

Wouters P. Citation cycles and peer review cycles. Scientometrics. 1997;38(1):39-55.

Nicolaisen J. Citation analysis. Annu Rev Inform Sci Technol. 2007;41:609-41.

Smith M. The trend toward multiple authorship in psychology. American Psychologist. 1958;13:596-9.

Kaplan N. The norms of citation behavior: Prolegomena to the footnote. American Documentation. 1965;16:179-84.

Harter SP. Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1992;43(9):602-15.

Latour B, Woolgar S. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.

Small H. Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science. 1978;8:327-40.

Cosijn E, Ingwersen P. Dimensions of relevance. Inf Process Manage. 2000;36(4):533-50.

Case DO, Higgins GM. How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 2000;51(7):635-45.

Ahmed T, Johnson B, Oppenheim C, Peck C. Highly cited old papers and the reasons why they continue to be cited. Part II. The 1953 Watson and Crick article on the structure of DNA. Scientometrics. 2004;61(2):147-56.

White HD. Reward, persuasion, and the Sokal Hoax: A study in citation identities. Scientometrics. 2004;60(1):93-120.

Kim K. The motivation for citing specific references by social scientists in Korea: The phenomenon of co-existing references. Scientometrics. 2004;59(1):79-93.

Baldi S, Hargens LL. Reassessing the N-Rays Reference Network - the Role of Self Citations and Negative Citations. Scientometrics. 1995;34(2):239-53.

Moravcsik M, Morugesan P. Some results on the function and quality of citation Social Studies of Science. 1975;5:86-92.

Vinkler P. A quasi-quantitative citation model. Scientometrics. 1987;12(1-2):47-72.

MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR. Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1989;40:342-9.

Garfield E. Citation indexing: Its theory and applications in science, technology and humanities. New York: Wiley, 1979.

Cañedo Andalia R. Los análisis de citas en la evaluación de los trabajos científicos y las publicaciones seriadas. ACIMED. 1999;7(1):30-9.

Spinak E. Indicadores cienciométricos. ACIMED. 2001;9(Suppl.):42-9.

Vinkler P. Composite scientometric indicators for evaluating publications of research institutes. Scientometrics. 2006;68(3):629-42.

Bailon-Moreno R, Jurado-Alameda E, Ruiz-Banos R, Courtial JP. Analysis of the field of physical chemistry of surfactants with the Unified Scienctometric Model. Fit of relational and activity indicators. Scientometrics. 2005;63(2):259-76.

Guzmán Sánchez MV, Sotolongo Aguilar G. Mapas tecnológicos para la estrategia empresarial. Situación tecnológica de la neisseria meningitidis. ACIMED. 2002;10(4).

Glanzel W, Schoepflin U. "Little Scientometrics, Big Scientometrics ... and Beyond". Scientometrics. 1994;30(2-3):375-84.

Nagpaul PS. Contribution of Indian Universities to the Mainstream Scientific Literature - a Bibliometric Assessment. Scientometrics. 1995;32(1):11-36.

Braun T, Glanzel W. Chemistry research in Eastern Central Europe (1992-1997) - Facts and figures on publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics. 2000;49(2):187-213.

Nelson MJ. Visualization of citation patterns of some Canadian journals. Scientometrics. 2006;67(2):279-89.

Moya-Anegon F, Herrero-Solana V, Jimenez-Contreras E. A connectionist and multivariate approach to science maps: the SOM, clustering and MDS applied to library science research and information. J Inf Sci. 2006;32(1):63-77.

Klavans R, Boyack KW. Identifying a better measure of relatedness for mapping science. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2006;57(2):251-63.

Chen CM. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2006;57(3):359-77.

Moya-Anegon F, Vargas-Quesada B, Chinchilla-Rodriguez Z, Corera-Alvarez E, Herrero-Solana V, Munoz-Fernandez FJ. Domain analysis and information retrieval through the construction of heliocentric maps based on ISI-JCR category cocitation. Inf Process Manage. 2005;41(6):1520-33.

Moya-Anegon F, Vargas-Quesada B, Herrero-Solana V, Chinchilla-Rodriguez Z, Corera-Alvarez E, Munoz-Fernandez FJ. A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the cocitation of classes and categories. Scientometrics. 2004;61(1):129-45.

Leydesdorff L. Clusters and maps of science journals based on bi-connected graphs in Journal Citation Reports. J Doc. 2004;60(4):371-427.

Boyack KW, Borner K. Indicator-assisted evaluation and funding of research: Visualizing the influence of grants on the number and citation counts of research papers. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2003;54(5):447-61.

Chen CM, McCain K, White H, Lin X. Mapping Scientometrics (1981-2001). Asist 2002: Proceedings of the 65th Asist Annual Meeting, Vol 39, 2002. Medford: INFORMATION TODAY INC, 2002:25-34.

Small H. Visualizing science by citation mapping. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1999;50(9):799-813.

Verbeek A, Debackere K. Patent evolution in relation to public/private R&D investment and corporate profitability: Evidence from the United States. Scientometrics. 2006;66(2):279-94.

Sen SK, Sharma HP. A note on growth of superconductivity patents with two new indicators. Inf Process Manage. 2006;42(6):1643-51.

Meyer M. Measuring science-technology interaction in the knowledge-driven economy: The case of a small economy. Scientometrics. 2006;66(2):425-39.

Baldini N. The Act on inventions at public research institutions: Danish universities' patenting activity. Scientometrics. 2006;69(2):387-407.

Atallah G, Rodriguez G. Indirect patent citations. Scientometrics. 2006;67(3):437-65.

Tijssen RJW, Van Leeuwen TN. Measuring impacts of academic science on industrial research: A citation-based approach. Scientometrics. 2005;66(1):55-69.

Altvater-Mackensen N, Balicki G, Bestakowa L, Bocatius B, Braun J, Brehmer L, et al. Science and technology in the region: The output of regional science and technology, its strengths and its leading institutions. Scientometrics. 2005;63(3):463-529.

Thelwall M, Vaughan L, Bjorneborn L. Webometrics. Annu Rev Inform Sci Technol. 2005;39:81-135.

Bjorneborn L, Ingwersen P. Toward a basic framework for webometrics. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2004;55(14):1216-27.

Faba Perez C, Guerrero Bote VP, Moya Anegón M. "Sitation" distributions and Bradford's law in a closed Web space. J Doc. 2003;59(5):558-80.

Prime C, Bassecoulard E, Zitt M. Co-citations and co-sitations: A cautionary view on an analogy. Scientometrics. 2002;54(2):291-308.

Polanco X, Ivana R, Dominique B. User science indicators in the Web context and co-usage analysis. Scientometrics. 2005;66(1):171-82.

Egghe L. New informetric aspects of the Internet: some reflections - many problems. J Inf Sci. 2000;26(5):329-35.

Rip A. Qualitative conditions of scientometrics: The new challenges. Scientometrics. 1997;38(1):7-26.

Hemlin S, Gustafsson M. Research production in the arts and humanities - A questionnaire study of factors influencing research performance. Scientometrics. 1996;37(3):417-32.

LindholmRomantschuk Y, Warner J. The role of monographs in scholarly communication: An empirical study of philosophy, sociology and economics. J Doc. 1996;52(4):389-404.

Hicks D. The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics. 1999;44(2):193-215.

Narvaez-Berthelemot N, Russell JM. World distribution of social science journals: A view from the periphery. Scientometrics. 2001;51(1):223-39.

Glanzel W, Schubert A. A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics. 2003;56(3):357-67.

Kavunenko L, Khorevin V, Luzan K. Comparative analysis of journals on social sciences and humanities in Ukraine and the world. Scientometrics. 2005;66(1):123-32.

Lariviere V, Gingras Y, Archambault E. Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics. 2006;68(3):519-33.

Weingart P. Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics. 2005;62(1):117-31.

Gomez I, Sancho R, Moreno L, Fernandez MT. Influence of Latin American journals coverage by international databases. Scientometrics. 1999;46(3):443-56.

Vessuri H. Recent Strategies for Adding Value to Scientific Journals in Latin-America. Scientometrics. 1995;34(1):139-61.

Cano V. Characteristics of the Publishing Infrastructure of Peripheral Countries - a Comparison of Periodical Publications from Latin-America with Periodicals from the Us and the Uk. Scientometrics. 1995;34(1):121-38.

Garfield E. How to use citation analysis for faculty evaluations and whwn is it relevant. Part 1. Current Contents. 1983;44:5-13.

Marshakova-Shaikevich I. Scientific collaboration of new 10 EU countries in the field of social sciences. Inf Process Manage. 2006;42(6):1592-8.

Lundberg J, Tomson G, Lundkvist I, Skar J, Brommels M. Collaboration uncovered: Exploring the adequacy of measuring university-industry collaboration through co-authorship and funding. Scientometrics. 2006;69(3):575-89.

Fry J. Scholarly research and information practices: a domain analytic approach. Inf Process Manage. 2006;42(1):299-316.

Wagner CS. Six case studies of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics. 2005;62(1):3-26.

Yoshikane F, Kageura K. Comparative analysis of coauthorship networks of different domains: The growth and change of networks. Scientometrics. 2004;60(3):433-44.

Hara N, Solomon P, Kim SL, Sonnenwald DH. An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2003;54(10):952-65.

Price DJdS. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963.

Crane D. Invisible college: diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1972.

Hagstrom WO. The scientific community. New York: Basic Books, 1965.

Price DJdS, Beaver DB. Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist. 1966;21:1011-8.

Milgram S. The small world problem. Psychology Today. 1967;1:61-7.

Storer NW. The internationality of science and the nationality of scientists. International Science Journal. 1970;22:87-104.

Lodahl JB, Gordon G. The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments. American Sociological Review. 1972;37:57-72.

Frame JD, Carpenter MP. International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science. 1979;9:481-97.

Meadows AJ, O'Connor JG. Bibliographic statistics as a guide to growth point in science. Science Studies. 1971;1:95-9.

Pravdic N, Oluic-Vukovic V. Dual approach to multiple authorship in the study of collaborator/scientific output relationship. Scientometrics. 1986;10(5-6):259-80.

Narin F, Stevens K, Whitlow ES. Scientific Cooperation in Europe and the Citation of Multinationally Authored Papers. Scientometrics. 1991;21(3):313-23.

Kodama F. Technology fusion and the new R+D. Harvard Business Review. 1992;70:70-8.

Luukkonen T, Persson O, Sivertsen G. Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values. 1992;17(1):101-26.

Katz JS. Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics. 1994;31(1):34-43.

Balancieri R, Botelho Bovo A, Medina Kern V, Santos Pacheco RC, Miranda Barcia R. A análise de redes de colaboração científica sob as novas tecnologias de informação e comunicação: um estudo na Plataforma Lattes. Ciência da Informação 2005;34(1):64-77.

Katz JS, Martin BR. What is research collaboration. Research Policy. 1997;26(1):1-18.

Barabasi AL, Albert R, Jeong H. Mean-field theory for scale-free random networks. Physica A. 1999;272(1-2):173-87.

Borgatti SP, Everett MG. Network analysis of 2-mode data. Social Networks. 1997;19(3):243-69.

Wasserman S, Faust K. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Newman MEJ. Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E. 2001;64(1):016131.

Newman MEJ. Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E. 2001;64(1):016132.

Boyack KW, Klavans R, Borner K. Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics. 2005;64(3):351-74.

Engels A, Ruschenburg T, Weingart P. Recent internationalization of global environmental change research in Germany and the US. Scientometrics. 2005;62(1):67-85.

Hjorland B, Albrechtsen H. Toward a New Horizon in Information-Science - Domain-Analysis. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1995;46(6):400-25.

Small H. Paradigms, citations, and maps of science: A personal history. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2003;54(5):394-9.

Sanz Casado E, Suarez Balseiro C, Iribarren Maestro I, Pau MRD, de Pedro Cuesta J. Bibliometric mapping of scientific research on prion diseases, 1973-2002. Inf Process Manage. 2007;43(1):273-84.

Janssens F, Leta J, Glanzel W, De Moor B. Towards mapping library and information science. Inf Process Manage. 2006;42(6):1614-42.

Borner K, Chen CM, Boyack KW. Visualizing knowledge domains. Annu Rev Inform Sci Technol. 2003;37:179-255.

Chen CM, McCain K, Boyack KW, Lin X, Morris SA. Mapping the knowledge. Asist 2002: Proceedings of the 65th Asist Annual Meeting, Vol 39, 2002. Medford: INFORMATION TODAY INC, 2002:511-2.

White HD, McCain KW. Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1998;49(4):327-55.

Moya Anegón F, Vargas Quesada B, Chinchilla Rodriguez Z, Corera Alvarez E, Gonzalez Molina A, Munoz Fernandez FJ, et al. Visualizing and analyzing the Spanish science structure: ISI Web of science 1990-2005. Prof Inform. 2006;15(4):258-69.

Reyes Barragán MJ, Guerrero Bote VP, Moya Anegón Fd. Proyección internacional de la investigación de Extremadura (1990-2002). Revista Española de Documentación Científica. 2006;29(4):525-50.

Lariviere V, Archambault E, Gingras Y, Vignola-Gagne E. The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2006;57(8):997-1004.

Åström F. Visualizing Library and Information Science concept spaces through keyword and citation based maps and clusters. In: Bruce F, Ingwersen P, Vakkari P, eds. Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4). Greenwood Village: Libraries unlimited, 2002:185-97.

White HD. Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: A remapping of paradigmatic information scientists. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2003;54(5):423-34.

Leydesdorff L, Hellsten I. Measuring the meaning of words in contexts: An automated analysis of controversies about 'Monarch butterflies,' 'Frankenfoods,' and 'stem cells'. Scientometrics. 2006;67(2):231-58.

Mutschke P, Haase AQ. Collaboration and cognitive structures in social science research fields. Towards socio-cognitive analysis in information systems. Scientometrics. 2001;52(3):487-502.

Courtial JP, Gourdon L. A scientometric approach to autism based on translation sociology. Scientometrics. 1997;40(2):333-55.

Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd Ed ed. Chicago & Londres: Univiversity of Chicago Press, 1970.

Wikgren M. Critical realism as a philosophy and theory in information science? J Doc. 2005;61(1):11-22.

Talja S, Tuominen K, Savolainen R. "Isms" in information science: constructivism, collectivism and constructionism. J Doc. 2005;61(1):79-101.

Pettigrew KE, Fidel R, Bruce H. Conceptual frameworks in information Behavior. Annu Rev Inform Sci Technol. 2001;35:43-78.

Vega Almeida RL. Influencia del paradigma tecnológico en la organización de la información. ACIMED. 2007;15(2).

Linares Columbié R. Las investigaciones cuantitativas y cualitativas en ciencia de la información: algunas consideraciones. Forinf@: Revista iberoamericana sobre usuarios de la información. 2001(11):11-4.

Moya Anegón F, Fernández Molina JC. Perspectivas epistemológicas "humanas" en la documentación. Revista Española de Documentación Científica. 2002;25(3):241-53.

Chen CM. Visualizing scientific paradigms: An introduction. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2003;54(5):392-3.

Moya-Anegon F, Vargas-Quesada B, Chinchilla-Rodriguez Z, Corera-Alvarez E, Gonzalez-Molina A, Munoz-Fernandez FJ, et al. Visualizing and analyzing the Spanish science structure: ISI Web of science 1990-2005. Prof Inform. 2006;15(4):258-69.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS