Relación del indicador de disrupción con otros indicadores bibliométricos

Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P. and De-Moya-Anegón, Félix Relación del indicador de disrupción con otros indicadores bibliométricos. Infonomy, 2024, vol. 2, n. 1. [Journal article (Unpaginated)]

[thumbnail of Guerrero-De-Moya-Relacion-del-indicador.pdf]
Preview
 Text
Guerrero-De-Moya-Relacion-del-indicador.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (977kB) | Preview

English abstract

An indicator to measure disruption has recently been proposed (Funk & Owen-Smith, 2017; Wu, Wang, & Evans, 2019) which has given rise to a large number of variants (Bornmann et al., 2020). In this work we are going to focus on the original indicator DI and the one that seems to have a better performance DI5 (Bornmann and Tekles, 2021; Bittmann et al., 2021) carrying out a large-scale study comparing the scores assigned to each paper. with other bibliometric indicators. The result is that the papers to which the bibliometric indicators assign more value do not obtain better scores. Reviews and short surveys have higher scores than articles and conference papers. Excellent papers have worse scores than non-excellent ones. Works with international collaboration obtain worse values than those without it. Works published in Q1 journals have worse scores than those published in journals of other quartiles. And there is also a small negative correlation with the normalized impact and with the technological impact.

Spanish abstract

Recientemente se ha propuesto un indicador para medir la disrupción (Funk & Owen-Smith, 2017; Wu, Wang, & Evans, 2019) que ha dado lugar a un gran número de variantes (Bornmann et al., 2020). En este trabajo nos vamos a centrar en el indicador original DI y el que parece tener un mejor comportamento DI5 (Bornmann y Tekles, 2021; Bittmann et al., 2021) realizando un estudio a gran escala comparando las puntuaciones que le asignan a cada trabajo con otros indicadores bibliométricos. El resultado es que no obtienen mejores puntuaciones los documentos a los que los indicadores biblométricos le asignan más valor. Los reviews y los short surveys tienen mayores puntuaciones que los articles y los conference papers. Los trabajos excelentes tienen peores puntuaciones que los no excelentes. Los trabajos con colaboración internacional obtienen peores valores que los que no la tienen. Los trabajos publicados en revistas Q1 tienen peores puntuaciones que los publicados en revistas de otros cuartiles. Y además existe una pequeña correlación negativa con el impacto normalizado y con el impacto tecnológico.

Item type: Journal article (Unpaginated)
Keywords: Scientometrics; Bibliometrics; Bibliometric indicators; Disruption indices; Scientific impact; Excellence; Technological impact; Cienciometría; Bibliometría; Indicadores bibliométricos; Índices de disrupción; Impacto científico; Excelencia; Impacto tecnológico.
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
B. Information use and sociology of information > BC. Information in society.
Depositing user: Tomàs Baiget
Date deposited: 28 Feb 2024 06:56
Last modified: 28 Feb 2024 08:28
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/45621

References

Arthur, W. B. (2007). The structure of invention. Research policy, 36(2), 274-287.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.11.005

Bittmann, F.; Tekles, A.; Bornmann, L. (2021). Applied usage and performance of statistical matching in bibliometrics: The comparison of milestone and regular papers with multiple measurements of disruptiveness as an empirical example. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(4), 1246-1270.

https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00158

Bornmann, L.; Devarakonda, S.; Tekles, A.; Chacko, G. (2019). Disruptive papers published in Scientometrics: meaningful results by using an improved variant of the disruption index originally proposed by Wu, Wang, and Evans (2019). Scientometrics, 123, 1149–1155 (2020).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03406-8

Bornmann, L.; Devarakonda, S.; Tekles, A.; Chacko, G. (2020). Are disruption index indicators convergently valid? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), 1242-1259.

https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00068

Bornmann, Lutz; Moya-Anegón, Félix; Leydesdorff, Loet (2012). “The new excellence indicator in the World Report of the SCImago Institutions Rankings 2011”. Journal of Informetrics, vol. 6, n. 2, pp. 333–335.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.11.006

Bornmann, L.; Tekles, A. (2019a). Disruptive papers published in Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 120, 331–336.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03113-z

Bornmann, L.; Tekles, A. (2019b). Disruption index depends on length of citation window. Profesional de la información, 28(2).

https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.mar.07

Bornmann, L.; Tekles, A. (2021). Convergent validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts. Journal of Informetrics, 15(3), 101159.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101159

Funk, R. J.; Owen-Smith, J. (2017). A dynamic network measure of technological change. Management science, 63(3), 791-817.

https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2366

Guerrero-Bote, V. P.; Moed, H. F.; Moya-Anegon, F. (2021). New indicators of the technological impact of scientific production. Journal of Data and Information Science, 6(4), 36–61.

https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0028

Leydesdorff, L.; Tekles, A.; Bornmann, L. (2021). A proposal to revise the disruption indicator. Profesional de la información, 30(1).

https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2021.ene.21

Park, M.; Leahey, E.; Funk, R. J. (2023). Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature, 613(7942), 138-144.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x

Rehn, Catharina; Kronman, Ulf (2008). Bibliometric handbook for Karolinska Institutet. Karolinska Institutet University Library. Version 1.05.

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1480.9447

Schumpeter, J. A. (2011). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.

Tushman, M. L.; Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative science quarterly, 31, 439-465. PART III.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2392832

Wu, L.; Wang, D.; Evans, J. A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566(7744), 378-382.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0941-9


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