Evolución de las características de la citación en las monografías: el caso de la no citación

  1. Almudena MANGAS VEGA 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

Revista:
Ibersid: revista de sistemas de información y documentación = journal of information and documentation systems

ISSN: 1888-0967

Ano de publicación: 2022

Volume: 16

Número: 1

Páxinas: 13-20

Tipo: Artigo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Ibersid: revista de sistemas de información y documentación = journal of information and documentation systems

Resumo

One of the elements that have a recognized weight in studies on the distribution of citations and their behavior in different documentary typologies and disciplines is non-citation, an element that is also affected by time (half-life, aging of citations, etc.). All these facts have been studied profusely for years, and from very different perspectives, but little has been done in the framework of scientific monographs despite being an area in which criticisms of evaluation systems continue to appear. This work aims to study the evolution of non-citation in monographs analyzing the results of previous works; for this, the studies of Rong Tang (2008) and Jeppe Nicolaisen and Tove Faber Frandsen (2019) are taken, and, after the necessary normalizations, replications of steps and data treatment, they are comparatively analyzed from the point of view of said evolution. The results suggest a relationship between the non-citation ratios and the document typology,allowing a better understanding of the current panorama of the publication and use of scientific information, and making the non-citation ratio an interesting indicator to measure the varying impact of scientific monographs.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aghaei Chadegani, A.; Salehi, H.; Md Yunus, M. M.; Farhadi, H.; Fooladi, M.; Farhadi, M.; Ale Ebrahim, N. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of science and scopus databases. // Asian Social Science, ISSN 1911-2017. 9:5, 18-26. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18.
  • Belcher, B. M.; Rasmussen, K. E.; Kemshaw, M. R.; Zornes, D.A. (2016). Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context. // Research Evaluation. ISSN 14715449. 25:1, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv025.
  • Bertoli-Barsotti, L.; Lando, T. (2019). How mean rank and mean size may determine the generalised Lorenz curve: With application to citation analysis. // Journal of Informetrics, ISSN 1875-5879. 13:1, 387-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.02.003.
  • Bornmann, L.; Thor, A.; Marx, W.; Schier, H. (2016). The application of bibliometrics to research evaluation in the humanities and social sciences: An exploratory study using normalized Google Scholar data for the publications of a research institute. // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. ISSN 2330-1643. 67:11, 2778-2789. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23627.
  • Chapman, K.; Yates, S. D. (2017). The Impact of the Monographs Crisis on the Field of Communication. // Journal of Academic Librarianship. 43:3, 163-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.02.018.
  • Chi, P. S. (2016). Differing disciplinary citation concentration patterns of book and journal literature? // Journal of Informetrics. ISSN 1875-5879. 10:3, 814-829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.05.005.
  • Cordón-García, J.-A.; Merchán-Sánchez-Jara, J.; Mangas-Vega, A. (2019). Evolution of the visibility of scholarly monographs in the academic field. // El Profesional de la Información. ISSN 1386-6710. 28:4. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.jul.09.
  • Crossick, G. (2015). Monographs and Open Access A report to HEFCE January 2015 Report of the HEFCE Monographs // Monographs and Open Access report to HEFCE. S.l.: s.n.;
  • Cuenca, A. M. B.; Barbosa, M. M. de A. L.; Oliveira, K. de, Quinta, F. P.; Alvarez, M. Do C. A.; França Junior, I. (2017). Artigos não citados nas revistas brasileiras em saúde pública. // Revista de Saúde Pública. ISSN 0034-8910. 51:114. https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2017051000442.
  • Dunaiski, M.; Geldenhuys, J.; Visser, W. (2019). On the interplay between normalisation, bias, and performance of paper impact metrics. // Journal of Informetrics. ISSN 1875-5879. 13:1, 270-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.01.003.
  • Egghe, L. (2008). The mathematical relation between the impact factor and the uncitedness factor. // Scientometrics. ISSN 0138-9130. 76:1,117-123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1902-x.
  • Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R. (2011). Thoughts on uncitedness: Nobel laureates and Fields medalists as case studies. // Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. ISSN 1532-2882. 62:8, 1637-1644. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21557.
  • Enger, K. B. (2009). Using citation analysis to develop core book collections in academic libraries. // Library and Information Science Research. ISSN 0740-8188. 31:2, 107-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2008.12.003.
  • 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. ISSN 0892-6638. 22:2, 338-342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF.
  • Ferwerda, E. (2010). Open Access monographic publishing in the humanities. // Information Services and Use. 30:3-4,135-141. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2010-0611.
  • Garg, K.C.; Kumar, S. (2014). Uncitedness of Indian scientific output. // Current Science. ISSN 0011-3891. 107:6, 965-970. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v107/i6/965-970.
  • Ghosh, J.S.; Neufeld, M.L. (1974). Uncitedness of articles in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. // Information Storage and Retrieval. ISSN 00200271. 10:11-12, 365-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0271(74)90043-6.
  • Giménez-Toledo, E.; Mañana-Rodríguez, J.; Engels, T.; Ingwersen, P.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.; Verleysen, F.; Zuccala, A. (2015). The evaluation of scholarly books as a research output: Current developments in Europe. // Proceedings of ISSI 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference. Istanbul, 2015. S.l.: s.n. 469-476. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84978242677&partnerID=40&md5=2d6314d2c44db046bac9501b281665d4.
  • Giménez-Toledo, E.; Mañana-Rodríguez, J.; Engels, T.C.E.; Ingwersen, P.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.; Verleysen, F.T.; Zuccala, A.A. (2016). Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries. // Scientometrics. ISSN 1588-2861. 107, 685-699 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1886-5.
  • Giménez-Toledo, E.; Mañana-Rodríguez, J.; Sivertsen, G. (2017). Scholarly book publishing: Its information sources for evaluation in the social sciences and humanities. // Research Evaluation. 26:2, 91-101. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx007.
  • Glänzel, W.; Thijs, B.; Chi, P. S. (2016). The challenges to expand bibliometric studies from periodical literature to monographic literature with a new data source: the book citation index. // Scientometrics. ISSN 1588-2861. 109:2165-2179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2046-7.
  • Gopalakrishnan, S.; Gopalakrishnan, S.; Bathrinarayanan, A. L.; Tamizhchelvan, M. (2015). Uncited publications in MEMS literature: A bibliometric study. // DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology. ISSN 0976-4658. vol. 35: . https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.35.2.8324.
  • Guerrero-Bote, V.P.; Moya-Anegón, F. (2012). A further step forward in measuring journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR2 indicator. // Journal of Informetrics. ISSN 1751-1577. 6:4, 674-688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.001.
  • Halevi, G.; Nicolas, B.; Bar-Ilan, J. (2016). The Complexity of Measuring the Impact of Books. // Publishing Research Quarterly. ISSN 1936-4792. 32:3, 187-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9464-5.
  • Hamilton, D. P. (1990). Research papers: Who’s uncited now? // Science. ISSN 0036-8075. 251: 4989, 25. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1986409.
  • Hsu, J.W.; Huang, D. W. (2012). A scaling between Impact Factor and uncitedness. // Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. ISSN 0378-4371. 391: 5, 2129-2134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2011.11.028.
  • Hu, Z.; Wu, Y. (2018). A probe into causes of non-citation based on survey data. // Social Science Information. ISSN 1461-7412. 57: 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018417742537.
  • Jokić, M.; Mervar, A.; Mateljan, S. (2019). Comparative analysis of book citations in social science journals by Central and Eastern European authors. // Scientometrics. ISSN 1588-2861. 120:3, 1005-1029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03176-y.
  • Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Abdoli, M. (2018). Can Microsoft Academic assess the early citation impact of in-press articles? A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. // Journal of Informetrics. ISSN 1875-5879. 12:1, 287-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.009.
  • Kyvik, S. (2003). Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980-2000. // Scientometrics . ISSN 0138-9130. 58:1, 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025475423482.
  • Leydesdorff, L.; Milojević, S. (2015). Scientometrics. Comments on International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition. S.l.: s.n.; ISBN 9780080970875. https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4566
  • Liang, L.; Zhong, Z.; Rousseau, R. (2015). Uncited papers, uncited authors and uncited topics: A case study in library and information science. // Journal of Informetrics. ISSN 1875-5879. 9:1, 50-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.001.
  • Liao, C. H. (2015). How to conduct a multi-item research assessment in bibliometric studies? Theoretical support and empirical evidence. // Online Information Review . ISSN 1468-4527. 39:4, 574-587. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2015-0041.
  • Line, M. B. (1979). The influence of the type of sources used on the results of citation analyses. // Journal of Documentation. 35:4.
  • Mackenzie, I. S. (2009). Citedness, uncitedness, and the murky world between. // Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. S.l.: s.n. ISBN 9781605582474. https://doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520360.
  • Meho, L. I.; Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar. // Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology . ISSN 1532-2882. 58:13, 2105-2125. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677.
  • Merchán-Sánchez-Jara, J.; Mangas-Vega, A.; Dantas, T. (2018). Edición digital de monografías académicas de información y documentación por editoriales españolas. // El Profesional de la Información. ISSN 1386-6710. 27:3. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.may.13.
  • Minčić-Obradovic, K. (2010). E-books in Academic Libraries. Witney: Woodhead Publishing. ISBN 9781843345862.
  • Nicolaisen, J. (2002). The scholarliness of published peer reviews: A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. // Research Evaluation. ISSN 0958-2029. 11: 3, 129-140. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154402781776808.
  • Nicolaisen, J.; Frandsen, T. F. (2019). Zero impact: a large-scale study of uncitedness. // Scientometrics. ISSN 1588-2861.119:2, 1227–1254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03064-5.
  • Nowroozzadeh, M. H.; Salehi-Marzijarani, M. (2019). Uncitedness in the Top General Medical Journals. // Journal of General Internal Medicine volume. 34, 2695-2696.
  • Sile, L.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.; Guns, R.; Engels, T. C. E.; Arefiev, P.; Dušková, M.; Faurbæk, L.; Holl, A.; Kulczycki, E.; Macan, B.; Nelhans, G.; Petr, M.; Pisk, M.; Soós, S.; Stojanovski, J.; Stone, A.; Šušol, J.; Teitelbaum, R. (2018). Comprehensiveness of national bibliographic databases for social sciences and humanities: Findings from a European survey. // Research Evaluation. 27: 4, 310-322. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy016.
  • Sivertsen, G. (2016). Patterns of internationalization and criteria for research assessment in the social sciences and humanities. // Scientometrics . ISSN 1588-2861. 107, 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1845-1.
  • Smith, G. M. (1977). Key Books in business and management studies: A bibliometric analysis. // Aslib Proceedings. 29:5.
  • Stern, R. E. (1990). Uncitedness in the biomedical literature. // Journal of the American Society for Information Science. ISSN 1097-4571. 41: 3, 193-196. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199004)41:3<193::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-B.
  • Tahmasebi, S.; Foroughi, Z.; Alizadeh-Navaei, R. (2017). Comparing the levels of non-citation of Iranian journals on health in Persian and English in scopus database. // Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. ISSN 1735-9260. 26:146.
  • Tang, R. (2008). Citation characteristics and intellectual acceptance of scholarly monographs. // College and Research Libraries. ISSN 0010-0870. 69:4, 356. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.69.4.356.
  • Thelwall, M.; Delgado, M. M. (2015). Arts and humanities research evaluation: No metrics please, just data. // Journal of Documentation. ISSN 0022-0418. 71:4, 817-833. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2015-0028.
  • Thelwall, M.; Sud, P. (2014). No citation advantage for monograph-based collaborations? // Journal of Informetrics . ISSN 1751-1577. 8:1, 276-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.12.008.
  • Van Leeuwen, T. N.; Moed, H.F. (2005). Characteristics of journal impact factors: The effects of uncitedness and citation distribution on the understanding of journal impact factors. // Scientometrics. ISSN 0138-9130. 63: 2, 357-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0217-z.
  • Ward, K.; Johnston, R.; Richards, K.; Gandy, M.; Taylor, Z.; Paasi, A.; Fox, R.; Serje, M.; Yeung, H.W.-C.; Barnes, T.; Blunt, A.; Mcdowell, L. (2009). The future of research monographs: An international set of perspectives. // Progress in Human Geography. 33:1, 101-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132508100966.
  • Weale, A. R.; Bailey, M.; Lear, P.A. (2004). The level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: A comparison to the impact factor. // BMC Medical Research Methodology. ISSN 1471-2288. 4:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-4-14.
  • Yates, S. D.; Chapman, K. (2007). An examination of the use of monographs in the communication journal literature. // Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian. 26:1, 39-51. https://doi.org/10.1300/J103v26n01_03.
  • Zhao, S. X. (2015). Uncitedness of reviews. // Current Science. 109:8, 1377-1378.
  • Zhou, Q.; Zhang, C.; Zhao, S. X.; Chen, B. (2016). Measuring book impact based on the multi-granularity online review mining. // Scientometrics. 107:3, 1435-1455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1930-5.
  • Zuccala, A.; Guns, R.; Cornacchia, R.; Bod, R. (2015). Can we rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history. // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology . ISSN 2330-1643. 66:7, 1333-1347. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23267.
  • Zuccala, A. A.; Giménez-Toledo, E.; Peruginelli, G. (2018). Scholarly books and their evaluation context in the social sciences and humanities. // Aslib Journal of Information Management. 70: 6, 586-591. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-11-2018-271.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet