Evolution of the visibility of scholarly monographs in the academic field

  1. José-Antonio Cordón-García 1
  2. Javier Merchán-Sánchez-Jara 1
  3. Almudena Mangas-Vega 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

Revista:
El profesional de la información

ISSN: 1386-6710,  1699-2407

Año de publicación: 2019

Título del ejemplar: Uso de información académica

Volumen: 28

Número: 4

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3145/EPI.2019.JUL.09 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: El profesional de la información

Resumen

Scholarly monographs provide a good example to show the evolution of the impact that digital publishing has had over the last few decades in the transmission and communication of scientific information. On the one hand, in the area of Social Sciences and Humanities relevance in quantitative terms has been undermined, giving prominence to other document types such as research papers published in academic journals. Moreover, their visibility and accessibility have been conditioned by a number of factors that form an intrinsic part of the digital medium itself. Based on these two fundamental premises, this paper aims to analyze only the situation of scholarly monographs in institutional systems for research assessment and tenure, from the perspective of the various proposed requirements regarding accreditation for the different figures of university teaching staff and the request for Spanish recognition of six-year research periods.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Barbier, Frederic (2015). Historia del libro. Madrid: Alianza. ISBN: 978 84 9104 049 1
  • Barclay, Donald A. (2015). “Academic print books are dying. What’s the future?”. The conversation. Rigor académico, oficio periodístico. University of California. https://theconversation.com/academic-print-books-are-dying-whats-the-future-46248
  • Bartling, Sönke; Friesike, Sascha (eds.) (2014). Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration, and scholarly publishing. Springer. ISBN: 978 3 319 00026 8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8
  • Bourdieu, Pierre (2015). Las reglas del arte: génesis y estructura del campo literario. Barcelona: Anagrama. ISBN: 978 84 330 1397 5
  • Cabezas-Clavijo, Álvaro; Torres-Salinas, Daniel (2015). Los sexenios de investigación. Barcelona: Editorial UOC; El profesional de la información. ISBN: 978 84 90645307
  • Darnton, Robert (2010). Las razones del libro: futuro, presente y pasado. Madrid: Trama. ISBN: 978 84 92755 36 3
  • FEP (2016). European book publishing statistics 2015. Federation of European Publishers. https://fep-fee.eu/European-Book-Publishing-823
  • FEP (2018). European book publishing statistics 2017. Federation of European Publishers. https://fep-fee.eu/IMG/pdf/european_book_publishing_statistics_2017-2.pdf
  • FGEE (2011). Comercio interior del libro en España 2011. Madrid: Federación de Gremios de Editores de España. https://www.federacioneditores.org/img/documentos/Comercio_Interior_2011.pdf
  • FGEE (2013). Hábitos de lectura y compra de libros 2012. Madrid: Federación de Gremios de Editores. https://www.federacioneditores.org/img/documentos/HabitosLecturaCompraLibros2012ESP_310113_1.pdf
  • FGEE (2018a). Comercio interior del libro en España 2017. Madrid: Federación de Gremios de Editores de España. https://www.federacioneditores.org/img/documentos/comercio_interior_2017.pdf
  • FGEE (2018b). Hábitos de lectura y compra de libros 2017. Madrid: Federación de Gremios de Editores de España. https://www.federacioneditores.org/img/documentos/HabitosLecturaCompraLibros2017.pdf
  • García-Aracil, Adela (2013). “Understanding productivity changes in public universities: Evidence from Spain”. Research evaluation, v. 22, n. 5, pp. 351-368. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt009
  • Giménez-Toledo, Elea (2016). Malestar. Los investigadores ante su evaluación. Madrid: Iberoamericana Vervuert. ISBN: 978 84 84898184
  • Giménez-Toledo, Elea; Tejada-Artigas, Carlos; Mañana-Rodríguez, Jorge (2012). “Evaluation of scientific books’ publishers in social sciences and humanities: Results of a survey”. Research evaluation, v. 22, n. 1, pp. 64-77. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs036
  • Hefce (2016). Publication patterns in research underpinning impact in REF2014. Digital Science. https://cutt.ly/y7fc4m
  • Hicks, Diana (2012). “Performance-based university research funding systems”. Research policy, v. 41, n. 2, pp. 251-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007
  • Hicks, Diana; Wouters, Paul; Waltman, Ludo; De-Rijcke, Sarah; Rafols, Ismael (2015). “El Manifiesto de Leiden sobre indicadores de investigación”. Revista iberoamericana de ciencia tecnología y sociedad, v. 10, n. 29, pp. 275-280. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=92438580012
  • Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo; De-Moya-Anegón, Félix; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2003). “The evolution of research activity in Spain. The impact of the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (Cneai)”. Research policy v. 32, n. 1, pp. 123-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00008-2
  • Jonkers, Koen; Zacharewicz, Thomas (2016). Research performance based funding systems: A comparative assessment. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre. https://doi.org/10.2760/70120
  • Jubb, Michael (2017). Academic books and their future. Arts and Humanities Research Council. British Library Academic. Book of the Future Project. https://academicbookfuture.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/academic-books-and-their-futures_jubb1.pdf
  • Kulczycki, Emanuel; Engels, Tim C. E.; Nowotniak, Robert (2017). “Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities in Flanders and Poland”. In: Proceedings of ISSI 2017 Wuhan: 16th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, Wuhan, China, 16-29 October 2017, pp. 95-104. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Publication-patterns-in-the-social-sciences-and-in-Kulczycki-Engels/ee260bc2395d14a29fa690663f690d0821e76005
  • Larivière, Vincent; Costas, Rodrigo (2016). “How many is too many? On the relationship between research productivity and impact”. PLoS one, v. 11, n. 9, e0162709. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/paper?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162709
  • Marini, Giulio (2018). “Tools of individual evaluation and prestige recognition in Spain: How sexenio ‘mints the golden coin of authority’”. European journal of higher education, v. 8, n. 2, pp. 201-214, https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2018.1428649
  • Matthews, David (2016). Academics shun books in favor of journal articles. THE World University Rankings. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/academics-shun-books-in-favour-of-journal-articles
  • Ministerio de Cultura (2013). Panorámica de la edición española de libros 2012. Madrid. https://www.cegal.es/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Panorámica-de-la-Edición-Española-de-Libros-2013.pdf
  • Ministerio de Cultura (2014). Panorámica de la edición española de libros 2013. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. https://www.cegal.es/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Panorámica-de-la-Edición-Española-de-Libros-2013.pdf
  • Ministerio de Cultura (2017). Panorámica de la edición española de libros 2016. Madrid. https://www.cegal.es/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Panorámica-de-la-Edición-Española-de-Libros-2016.pdf
  • Molas-Gallart, Jordi (2012). “Research governance and the role of evaluation: A comparative study”. American journal of evaluation, v. 33, n. 4, pp. 583-598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214012450938
  • Osuna, Carmen; Cruz-Castro, Laura; Sanz-Menéndez, Luis (2011). “Overturning some assumptions about the effects of evaluation systems on publication performance”. Scientometrics, v. 86, pp. 575-592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0312-7
  • Puuska, Hanna-Mari (2014). Scholarly publishing patterns in Finland: A comparison of disciplinary groups. Academic Dissertation. Tampere: Tampere University Press. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1003.9932&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  • Reisz, Matthew (2017). Worst sellers: warning of existential crisis for academic books. THE World University Rankings. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/worst-sellers-warning-existential-crisis-academic-books
  • Sivertsen, Gunnar (2014). “Scholarly publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities and their coverage in Scopus and Web of Science”. In: Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference, pp. 598-604. Universiteit Leiden. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297369590_Scholarly_publication_patterns_in_the_social_sciences_and_humanities_and_their_coverage_in_Scopus_and_Web_of_Science
  • Sivertsen, Gunnar; Larsen, Birger (2012). “Comprenhensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: An empirical analysis of the potential”. Scientometrics, v. 91, n. 2, pp. 567-575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0615-3
  • Valladares, Fernando; Rodríguez-Gironés, Miguel-Ángel; Magalhaes, Sara; Hortal, Joaquín; Moya, Jordi; Lloret, Francisco (2016). “Comunicación y divulgación, un exigente test de la polivalencia del científico”. Ciencia crítica, 21 octubre. http://www.eldiario.es/cienciacritica/Comunicacion_cientifica-divulgacion-cientifico_6_571902806.html
  • Verleysen, Frederik T.; Ghesquière, Pol; Engels, Tim C. E. (2014). “The objectives, design and selection process of the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW)”. In: Blockmans, Wim; Engwall, Lars; Weaire, Denis. Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance. London: Portland Press, pp. 117-127. ISBN: 978 1 85578 195 5 https://cutt.ly/y7fAoO
  • Williams, Geoffrey; Basso, Antonella; Galleron, Ioana; Lippiello, Tiziana (2018). “More, less or better: The problem of evaluating books in SSH research”. In: Bonaccorsi, Andrea (ed.). The evaluation of research in social sciences and humanities, pp. 133-158. Springer, Cham. ISBN: 978 3 319 68554 0 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_6
  • Wilsdon, James (2015). The metric tide: Independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473978782
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet