Producción Científica

Fraud has been a great evil for economies, society, and companies, given the instability and impacts it generates. This study aimed to analyze the evolution of scientific production on accounting fraud in organizations, based on a bibliometric study for the trend analysis. It was identified 246 scientific publications in the period 1978-2019 and 394 authors. The results verify the existing research interest in the subject, pointing out thematic trends in administration, auditing, corporate governance, and corruption, with risk as the main emerging theme. They also suggest future directions for researchers and contributions to the research development of the field of knowledge in question.

The Journal of Universal Computer Science is a monthly peer-reviewed open-access scientific journal covering all aspects of computer science, launched in 1994, so becoming twenty-five years old in 2019. In order to celebrate its anniversary, this study presents a bibliometric overview of the leading publication and citation trends occurring in the journal. The aim of the work is to identify the most relevant authors, institutions, countries, and analyze their evolution through time. The article uses the Web of Science Core Collection citations and the ACM Computing Classification System in order to search for the bibliographic information. Our study also develops a graphical mapping of the bibliometric material by using the visualization of similarities (VOS) viewer. With this software, the work analyzes bibliographic coupling, citation and co-citation analysis, co-authorship, and co-occurrence of keywords. The results underline the significant growth of the journal through time and its international diversity having publications from countries all over the world and covering a wide range of categories which confirms the “universal” character of the journal.

This study identifies the presence, productivity and influence of Ibero-American authors that write about information literacy (InfoLit). Using bibliometric and altmetric indicators, it seeks to analyze the impact and subsequent use of their scholarly works on social and scientific platforms. Fifty-five authors with the highest productivity were identified, based on the results of bibliometric studies on InfoLit carried out on both an international and Ibero-American scale in searches of major databases as well as publications collected in a Latin American wiki. Subsequently an analysis of bibliometric and altmetric indicators at the author and publication level was carried out, based on the results of searches on eight scientific platforms (Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Academia. edu, Mendeley, ORCID, IraLIS, E-LIS and EXIT), three social networks (Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn), and data provided by a commercial supplier (Altmetric. com). Overall we found a greater presence of authors in ResearchGate (58%), Academia. edu (51%) and Google Scholar (49%) as opposed to Mendeley (25%) and ORCID (18%). Furthermore, as to social platforms, the greatest potential influence lies with Facebook, due to its high number of followers (/top 10 authors). In addition, an analysis with the Spearman rho statistic, shows among some sources and platforms, a low correlation between the number of citations in Google Scholar and readings in Mendeley (r = 382) and low negative for mentions in blogs (r = 0,-237), Google+ (r = 0, -214) and Twitter (r = 0, -183). In conclusion, both the productivity and the impact-visibility center on specific authors writing about InfoLit, and various measurement resources show that for these authors there is a positive two-way impact from bibliometric to altmetric and vice versa.