Use of the h index to rank scientific Latin American journals: Colombia a case study;Ranking de revistas científicas en latinoamérica mediante el índice h: Estudio de caso Colombia

Revista Espanola de Documentacion Cientifica

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Romero Torres, Mauricio ^a   Acosta Moreno, Luis Alberto ^a   Tejada Gómez, María Alejandra ^b  

^a PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD JAVERIANA   (Colombia)

^b UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Colombia; Google scholar; H index; Pol ticas; Ranking

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876360217     PISSN: 02100614     EISSN: 19884621     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3989/redc.2013.1.876     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Adams, J. (1998). Benchmarking international research. Nature, 396 (6712), 615-618.
2. Alfonso, F.; Bermejo, Y.; Segovia, J. (2005). Impactology, impactitis, impactotherapy. Revista Española de Cardiologia, 58 (10), 1239-1245.
3. Alonso, S.; Cabrerizo, F. J.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. (2009). H-index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3 (4), 273-289.
4. Arunachalam, S.; Manorama, K. (1989). Are citationbased quantitative techniques adequate for measuring science on the periphery? Scientometrics, 15 (5-6), 393-408.
5. Bador, P.; Lafouge, T. (2010). Comparative analysis between impact factor and h-index for pharmacology and psychiatry journals. Scientometrics, 84 (1), 65-79.
6. Baneyx, A. (2008). "Publish or perish" as citation metrics used to analyze scientific output in the humanities: International case studies in economics, geography, social sciences, philosophy, and history. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 56 (6), 363-371.
7. Bergstrom, C. T. (2004). The costs and benefits of library site licenses to academic journals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101 (3), 897-902.
8. Bergstrom, C. T.; Bergstrom, T. C. (2006). The economics of ecology journals. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4 (9), 488-495.
9. Bertrand, I.; Hunter, L. (1998). African index medicus- a cooperative undertaking. Health Libraries Review, 15 (1), 17-20.
10. Bontis, N.; Serenko, A. (2009). A follow-up ranking of academic journals. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13 (1), 16-26.
11. Braun, T.; Glanzel, W.; Schubert, A. (2006). A hirschtype index for journals. Scientometrics, 69 (1), 169-173.
12. Bucheli, V.; Díaz, A.; Calderón, J.; Lemoine, P.; Valdivia, J.; Villaveces, J.; Zarama, R. (2012). Growth of scientific production in colombian universities: An intellectual capital-based approach. Scientometrics, 1-14.
13. Butler, D. (2008). Free journal-ranking tool enters citation market. Nature, 451 (7174), 6-6.
14. Camps, D. (2008). Limits of bibliometrics indicators in biomedical scientific research evaluation. Colombia Medica, 39 (1), 74-79.
15. Charum, J. (2004). La construcción de un sistema nacional de indexación, el caso de publindex. Convergencia, 11 (035), 293-309.
16. Chatterjee, S.; Hadi, A. S. (2006). Regression Analysis by Example. Hoboken, New Jersey; John Wiley & Sons. p.416.
17. Chen, P.; Xie, H.; Maslov, S.; Redner, S. (2007). Finding scientific gems with google's pagerank algorithm. Journal of Informetrics, 1 (1), 8-15.
18. Egghe, L. (2010). The hirsch-index and related impact measures. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44, 65-114.
19. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R. (1990). Introduction to informetrics: Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 450 p.
20. Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13 (4), e123.
21. Falagas, M. E.; Pitsouni, E. I.; Malietzis, G. A.; Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of pubmed, scopus, web of science, and google scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. Faseb Journal, 22 (2), 338-342.
22. Figueira, I.; Jacques, R.; Leta, J. (2003). A comparison between domestic and international publications in brazilian psychiatry. Scientometrics, 56 (3), 317-327.
23. Franceschet, M. (2010). A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on web of science and google scholar. Scientometrics, 83 (1), 243-258.
24. Gevers, W. (2009). Globalizing science publishing. Science, 325 (5943), 920.
25. Gibbs, W. W. (1995). Lost science in the third world. Scientific American, 273, 92-99.
26. Gómez, I; Sancho, R; Moreno, L; Fernández, M. T. (1999). Influence of Latin American journals coverage by international databases. Scientometrics, 46 (3), 443-456.
27. Gorbea-Portal, S.; Suárez-Balseiro, C. A. (2007). Análisis de la influencia y el impacto entre revistas periféricas no incluidas en el science citation index. Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología, 30 (2), 47-70.
28. Hardle, W.; Hlávka, Z. (2007). Multivariate statistics: exercises and solutions. New York; Springer, p.368.
29. Harzing, A.W.; van der Wal, R. (2009). A google scholar h-index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (1), 41-46.
30. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102 (46), 16569-16572.
31. Hirsch, J. E. (2007). Does the h index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (49), 19193-19198.
32. Hodge, D. R.; Lacasse, J. R. (2011). Evaluating journal quality: Is the h-index a better measure than impact factors? Research on Social Work Practice, 21 (2), 222-230.
33. Hull, D.; Pettifer, S. R.; Kell, D. B. (2008). Defrosting the digital library: Bibliographic tools for the next generation web. Plos Computational Biology, 4 (10), e1000204.
34. Ingwersen, P. (2000). The international visibility and citation impact of scandinavian research articles in selected social science fields: The decay of a myth. Scientometrics, 49 (1), 39-61.
35. Jacso, P. (2005). As we may search - comparison of major features of the web of science, scopus, and google scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89 (9), 1537-1547.
36. Jacsó, P. (2008). The pros and cons of computing the h-index using google scholar. Online Information Review, 32 (3), 437-452.
37. Jimenez-Contreras, E.; Torres-Salinas, D.; Ruiz-Perez, R.; Lopez-Cozar, E. D. (2010). Investigación de excelencia en españa: ¿protagonistas o papeles secundarios? Medicina Clinica, 134 (2), 76-81.
38. Katz, J. S. (1999). The self-similar science system. Research Policy, 28 (5), 501-517.
39. Kulkarni A.V.; Aziz. B.; Shams, I.; Busse, J.W. (2009). Comparisons of Citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for Articles Published in General Medical Journals. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association. 302 (10), 1092-1096.
40. Laborde, J. (2009). La evaluación científica y las revistas nacionales. Acta zoológica mexicana, 25 (3), 683-717.
41. León-Sarmiento, F.; Bayona-Prieto, J.; Bayona, E.; León, M. (2005). Colciencias e inconciencias con los científicos colombianos: De la edad de piedra al factor de impacto. Revista de Salud Pública, 7 (2), 227-235.
42. Leydesdorff, L. (1998). Theories of citation? Scientometrics, 43 (1), 5-25.
43. Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Visualization of the citation impact environments of scientific journals: An online mapping exercise. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(1), 25-38.
44. Leydesdorff, L. (2009). How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (7), 1327-1336.
45. Leydesdorff, L.; Bensman, S. (2006). Classification and powerlaws: The logarithmic transformation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (11), 1470-1486.
46. McKercher, B. (2008). A citation analysis of tourism scholars. Tourism Management, 29 (6), 1226-1232.
47. Moed, H. F.; Debruin, R. E.; Vanleeuwen, T. N. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance - database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33 (3), 381-422.
48. Moussa, S.; Touzani, M. (2010). Ranking marketing journals using the google scholar-based hg-index. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (1), 107-117.
49. Newman, M. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. Siam Review, 45 (2), 167-256.
50. Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C. (2010). The h-index: A broad review of a new bibliometric indicator. Journal of Documentation, 66 (5), 681-705.
51. Opthof, T.; Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (3), 423-430.
52. Puche, R. C. (2011). El factor de impacto, sus variantes y su influencia en la promoción académica. MEDICINA (Buenos Aires), 71 (5), 484-489.
53. Ren, S.; Rousseau, R. (2002). International visibility of chinese scientific journals. Scientometrics, 53 (3), 389-405.
54. Ríos Gómez, C.; Herrero Solana, V. (2005). La producción científica latinoamericana y la ciencia mundial: Una revisión bibliográfica (1989-2003). Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología, 28 (1), 43-61.
55. Saad, G. (2006). Exploring the h-index at the author and journal levels using bibliometric data of productive consumer scholars and business-related journals respectively. Scientometrics, 69 (1), 117-120.
56. Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7 (2), 121-132.
57. Schubert, A.; Glänzel, W. (2007). A systematic analysis of hirsch-type indices for journals. Journal of Informetrics, 1 (3), 179-184.
58. Spinak, E. (1996). Los análisis cuantitativos de la literatura científica y su validez para juzgar la producción latinoamericana. Boletín de la Oficina Sanitaria Panamericana, 120 (2), 139-145.
59. Spiroski, M.; Gogusev, J. (2008). Macedonian medical journals have very limited scientific influence. Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 1 (2), 10-16.
60. Téllez-Zenteno, J.; Morales-Buenrostro, L.; Estañol, B. (2007). Análisis del factor de impacto de las revistas científicas latinoamericanas. Rev Med Chile, 135 (4), 480-487.
61. Todd, P. A. (2009). Ambiguity, bias, and compromise: An abc of bibliometric-based performance indicators. Environment and Planning A, 41 (4), 765-771.
62. Todd, P. A. ; Ladle, R. J. (2008). Hidden dangers of 'citation culture'. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8 (1), 13-16.
63. Torres-Salinas, D. ; Jimenez-Contreras, E. (2010). Introduction and comparative study of the new scientific journals citation indicators in Journal Citation Reports and Scopus. El Profesional de la Informacion, 19 (2), 201-207.
64. Van Leeuwen, T.; Visser, M.; Moed, H.; Nederhof, T.; Van Raan, A. (2003). The holy grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 57 (2), 257-280.
65. van Raan, A. F. J. (2006). Comparison of the hirschindex with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67 (3), 491-502.
66. Vanclay, J. K. (2008). Ranking forestry journals using the h-index. Journal of Informetrics, 2 (4), 326-334.
67. Wagner, C. S. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development. Brookings Institution Press, 157 p.
68. Waltman, L.; van Eck, N. J. (2011). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63 (2), 406-415.
69. Yin, C. Y. (2011). Do impact factor, h-index and eigenfactor (tm) of chemical engineering journals correlate well with each other and indicate the journals' influence and prestige? Current Science, 100 (5), 648-653.
70. Zhou, P.; Leydesdorff, L. (2007). A comparison between the china scientific and technical papers and citations database and the science citation index in terms of journal hierarchies and interjournal citation relations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (2), 223-236.