Producción Científica

 

 

Importance: Scientific publication is an important tool for knowledge dissemination and career advancement, but authors affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are historically underrepresented on publications. Objective: To assess the country income level distribution of author affiliations for publications resulting from National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported extramural grants between 2015 and 2019, with international collaborating institutions exclusively in 1 or more LMICs. Design and Setting: This cross-sectional study assessed authorship on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Grants with collaborators in LMICs were identified in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Query/View/Report and linked to publications using Dimensions for NIH, published between 2011 and 2020. Statistical analysis was performed from May 2021 to July 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Author institutional affiliation was used to classify author country and related income level as defined by the World Bank. Relative citation ratio and Altmetric data from Dimensions for NIH were used to compare citation impact measures using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results: In this cross-sectional study, 159 grants were awarded to US institutions with collaborators in LMICs, and 5 grants were awarded directly to foreign institutions. These 164 grants resulted in 2428 publications, of which 1242 (51%) did not include any authors affiliated with an institution in an LMIC. In addition, 1884 (78%) and 2009 (83%) publications had a first or last author, respectively, affiliated with a high-income country (HIC). Publications with HIC-affiliated last authors also demonstrated greater citation impact compared with publications with LMIC-affiliated last authors as measured by relative citation ratios and Altmetric Attention Scores; publications with HIC-affiliated first authors also had higher Altmetric Attention Scores. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study suggests that LMIC-affiliated authors were underrepresented on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants involving LMICs. It is critical to promote equitable scientific participation by LMIC institutions in cancer research, including through current and planned programs led by the NCI.

 

 

Uno de los principales desafíos de las instituciones públicas de ciencia y tecnología radica en alinear las actividades y resultados de la investigación con la agenda de I+D y los lineamientos estratégicos definidos institucionalmente. Dentro de los factores que definen este alineamiento se encuentran las publicaciones científicas, consideradas incluso en muchos casos como el principal producto de las actividades de investigación. En el caso del Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA) de Uruguay se definió como política institucional el mejorar los indicadores de cantidad y calidad de publicaciones científicas arbitradas. Para cumplir este objetivo se definieron diferentes acciones a implementar. Con el objetivo de monitorear los resultados de estas se realizó un estudio bibliométrico de las publicaciones del INIA en el período 2011-2022. El artículo que aquí se propone presenta los resultados obtenidos, permitiendo la discusión acerca de la pertinencia estratégica, la evolución, la conformación de grupos de trabajo y las vinculaciones institucionales en relación con la publicación de artículos científicos. Este tipo de análisis contribuye a la revisión continua de la estrategia institucional de forma ágil, dinámica y eficiente.

 

 

Accounting information systems (AIS) are closely connected with using automated accounting data processing technologies, which increase reliability and prompt information delivery to stakeholders for management decision-making. The purpose of the article is to provide the AIS research domain with an additional impetus for further development based on a comprehensive characterization of quantitative parameters and systematic rethinking of trends in the evolution of the scientific themes. The article contains the methods of bibliometric analysis and chronological literature review based on clustering of keywords from a sample of AIS research indexed in Scopus in 1973–2023. The key findings indicate the nicheness of the AIS research problems, due to which the evaluation of the scientific output requires a multifaceted approach. It is found out which countries, journals, articles and authors play a decisive role in the formation of trends in the AIS research domain. Author keywords are used to assess the content orientation of the AIS research themes and to identify patterns of its evolution. We conclude that there is a content exhaustion in AIS scientific problems and the need to find new objects of research that correspond to the trends of Industry 4.0.

 

 

Journal of management & organization (JMO), which started its publication life in 1995, publishes scientific studies in the field of management and organization. This research aims to make a bibliometric analysis of 780 documents published since 2007 when JMO first started indexing in WoS. Research data were taken from the Web of Science database in plaintext format. The journal’s conceptual, intellectual, and social structure was revealed by applying techniques such as co-citation, co-authoring, and co-creation through the Vosviewer software. When the research results are examined, it is seen that there is an increasing trend in the number of citations after 2007, when JMO started to be indexed in the WoS database. Research findings show that 1516 authors contributed to the JMO, with “Tui Mckeown” being the most prolific author with fifteen documents. A total of 651 universities contributed to the JMO during the period under review. The top contributing university is Griffth University, with 38 papers. The country that has contributed the most to the JMO since 2007 is Australia, with 241 documents. “Leadership” is the most used keyword in the journal. “Academy of Management Journal” is the most used journal in the documents sent to the journal. The fact that the journal does not comply with Lotka’s law and the studies with multiple authors are more than single studies means that the cooperation between the authors is strong.

 

 

Measuring the impact of a publication in a fair way is a significant challenge in bibliometrics, as it must not introduce biases between fields and should enable comparison of the impact of publications from different years. In this paper, we propose a Bayesian approach to tackle this problem, motivated by empirical data demonstrating heterogeneity in citation distributions. The approach uses the a priori distribution of citations in each field to estimate the expected a posteriori distribution in that field. This distribution is then employed to normalize the citations received by a publication in that field. Our main contribution is the Bayesian Impact Score, a measure of the impact of a publication. This score is increasing and concave with the number of citations received and decreasing and convex with the age of the publication. This means that the marginal score of an additional citation decreases as the cumulative number of citations increases and increases as the time since publication of the document grows. Finally, we present an empirical application of our approach in eight subject categories using the Scopus database and a comparison with the normalized impact indicator Field Citation Ratio from the Dimensions AI database.

 

 

Citation rankings have emerged as a popular approach to ranking the scholarly impact of law faculties. This paper develops a statistical approach for inferring faculty quality from citation counts and determining when differences among law schools are significant. Statistical tests demonstrate that the distribution of citations within faculties closely follows the lognormal distribution, subject to small adjustments. This suggests a simple test for comparing faculties: whether they could be drawn from lognormal distributions with the same log mean. Under this approach, the geometric mean of citations is the most efficient measure for summarizing faculty quality. Using citation data collected from HeinOnline, this article provides a citation ranking for 195 law schools in the United States. Most differences between peer schools are statistically insignificant, and confidence intervals on citation ranks are extremely wide. Except for the highest-ranked faculties, citation rankings provide little information on the relative quality of faculties.

 

 

This paper measures two main inefficiency features (many publications other than articles; many co-authors’ reciprocal citations) and two main inequity features (more co-authors in some disciplines; more citations for authors with more experience). It constructs a representative dataset based on a cross-disciplinary balanced sample (10,000 authors with at least one publication indexed in Scopus from 2006 to 2015). It estimates to what extent four additional improvements of the H-index as top-down regulations (∆Hh = Hh − Hh+1 from H1 = based on publications to H5 = net per-capita per-year based on articles) account for inefficiency and inequity across twenty-five disciplines and four subjects. Linear regressions and ANOVA results show that the single improvements of the H-index considerably and decreasingly explain the inefficiency and inequity features but make these vaguely comparable across disciplines and subjects, while the overall improvement of the H-index (H1–H5) marginally explains these features but make disciplines and subjects clearly comparable, to a greater extent across subjects than disciplines. Fitting a Gamma distribution to H5 for each discipline and subject by maximum likelihood shows that the estimated probability densities and the percentages of authors characterised by H5 ≥ 1 to H5 ≥ 3 are different across disciplines but similar across subjects.

 

 

The Nobel Prize is an annual honor awarded to the researchers who have made the greatest contribution to humanity with their work in the year in question. Nobel Prizes for physiology or medicine and chemistry most often have direct or indirect pharmacological relevance. In this study, we performed a bibliometric analysis of Nobel Prize laureates from 2006 to 2022. The parameters include the nationalities and age of the laureates, age at their productivity peaks, the research locations, the H-index, the age-adjusted H-index, and the number of citations and publications, and, for each parameter, a comparison of female and male award laureates. Men were much more often awarded the Nobel Prize than women. Surprisingly, women were younger than their male colleagues at the time of the award although the productivity peak was similar. There was a correlation between all publications and the H-index, which was slightly stronger for women than for men. The age-adjusted H-index showed no difference among genders. The USA were the country with the highest number of Nobel Prize laureates, both male and female. Overall, the bibliometric characteristics of male and female Nobel Prize laureates are similar, indicating that among the group of Nobel Prize laureates, there is no bias against women. Rather, the achievements of women are recognized earlier than those of men. The major difference is that the number of women becoming Nobel Prize laureates is much smaller than the number of men. This study provides a starting for future studies with larger populations of scientists to analyze disparities.

 

 

As revistas científicas jogam um papel importante como canal de comunicação dos resultados de pesquisa científica, em todo mundo. Nos últimos anos, aumentou o número de revistas científicas eletrónicas em Angola, apesar da sua pouca visibilidade, no plano internacional. O objectivo deste artigo é descrever o perfil das revistas científicas eletrónicas de Angola. Trata-se de uma pesquisa exploratória e documental, em que foram observadas um total de 14 páginas web de revistas científicas, por meio de um formulário, contendo uma lista de controlo com os seguintes itens: ano de criação, instituição responsável, área do conhecimento, periodicidade das publicações, última publicação, indexação em bases de dados, uso do ORCiD pelos autores e informação sobre data de submissão, aceite e publicação dos originais. Os resultados indicam que mais de metade das revistas científicas são de carácter multidisciplinar e foram criadas no período entre 2012 e 2019; estão vinculadas a Instituições de Ensino Superior e estão indexadas em pelo uma base de dados, sendo de publicações semestrais. No entanto, o estudo também mostra que a maioria não publica, há pelo menos um ano. Conclui-se que o perfil das revistas científicas electrónicas de Angola é reflexo do contexto académico e científico do país, havendo neste domínio muitos desafios a superar.

 

 

The proliferation of questionable publishing practices has raised serious concerns in academia, prompting numerous discussions and investigations into the motivations behind researchers’ preference for such journals. In this study, we aimed to explore the impact of current academic performance evaluation systems on scholars’ questionable journal preferences in Turkey. Utilizing data from the comprehensive study conducted by Kulczycki et al. (2021) on questionable journals, we analyzed the academic careers of 398 researchers who authored 417 articles in this context. Our findings reveal a clear association between current research evaluation systems and journal selection, particularly during the process of applying for associate professorship. Notably, 96% of the articles published in questionable journals were listed in scholars’ academic profiles, indicating their use in academic promotion or incentive portfolios. While this study contributes valuable insights into the relationship between academic performance evaluation systems and questionable journal preferences, additional research is required to comprehensively understand the motivations behind scholars’ publishing choices and to devise effective strategies to combat questionable publishing practices in academia.