II FORO CCHS

EVALUACIÓN DE LA ACTIVIDAD CIENTÍFICA

EN CIENCIAS HUMANAS Y SOCIALES

Elea Giménez Toledoelea.gimenez@cchs.csic.es

Grupo de investigación de evaluación de publicaciones científicas (EPUC)http://epuc.cchs.csic.es/

Instituto de Estudios Documentales sobre Ciencia y Tecnología (IEDCYT)Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales (CCHS)

Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)

CONTEXTO Y NECESIDADES

Contexto y necesidades

Entorno exigente y competitivo

Necesidad de marcar y cumplir objetivos

Objetivos de política científica y su consonancia con la reciente “cultura de la evaluación”

Posibilidad de comparar áreas científicas

La preocupación por la evaluación en CHS NO solo es un asunto que preocupe en España

Sistemas de evaluación justos y eficientes ???

Herramientas de apoyo a la evaluación ¿públicas? ¿privadas?

Ante la necesidad de evaluar:

Defender las formas de comunicación de las CSH

Autocrítica

EVIDENCIAS CIENTÍFICAS

Evidencias científicas

Solo algunas relacionadas con los hábitos de comunicación

…Predominio de las monografías en las Humanidades (Hicks, 2004)

El 75% en Literatura inglesa (Heinzkill, 1980). El 66% en Wolfe Thomson, 2002

el 82% en Literatura (Stern, 1983)

el 65% en Historia de la Ciencia (McCain, 1987)

El 70% en Filosofía (Cullars, 1992)

Una media del 60% en un conjunto de áreas (Broadus, 1971; Nederhof, 1995; Cullars, 1998; Glänzel and Schoepflin, 1999)

Más del 70% en revistas españolas de Historia contemporánea (Sanz Casado et al., 2002)

Más del 71% de citas a otros documentos en el conjunto de revistas españolas (RESH. EPUC. CSIC. 2004)

Evidencias científicas

La percepción de la calidad de las revistas es

diferente según las disciplinas que las valoren y las

escuelas de pensamiento (Theoharakis, 2005)

Hay revistas muy bien valoradas por los expertos

con un bajo factor de impacto.

… y otras evidencias científicas relacionadas con el

factor de impacto

THE MISUSED IMPACT FACTOR

SCIENCE 10 OCTOBER 2008: VOL. 322 NO. 5899 P. 165 DOI:10.1126/SCIENCE.1165316

Kai Simons. Kai Simons is president of the European Life Scientist Organization and is at the Max Plank

Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics in Dresden, Germany.

Research papers from all over the world are published in thousands of Science

journals every year. The quality of these papers clearly has to be evaluated, not

only to determine their accuracy and contribution to fields of research, but also to

help make informed decisions about rewarding scientists with funding and

appointments to research positions. One measure often used to determine the

quality of a paper is the so-called "impact factor" of the journal in which it was

published. This citation-based metric is meant to rank scientific journals, but there

have been numerous criticisms over the years of its use as a measure of the quality

of individual research papers. Still, this misuse persists. Why?

UNSCIENTIFIC PRACTICE FLOURISHES IN SCIENCE

IMPACT FACTORS OF JOURNALS SHOULD NOT BE USED

IN RESEARCH ASSESSMENT

BMJ. 1998 APRIL 4; 316(7137): 1036.

Richard Smith, Editor

All around the world the scientific performance of individuals and

research groups is being assessed using the impact factors of the

journals in which they publish. Unfortunately the indisputable

evidence that this method is scientifically meaningless is being

ignored. Those who assess the performance of researchers seem to

be bewitched by the spurious precision of a number that is available

to several decimal places.

FORTNIGHTLY REVIEW: HOW CAN IMPACT

FACTORS BE IMPROVED?

BMJ 313:441 (Published 17 August 1996). Eugene Garfield, Chairman Emeritus.

Impact factors are widely used to rank and evaluate journals. They are

also often used inappropriately as surrogates in evaluation exercises. The

inventor of the Science Citation Index warns against the indiscriminate

use of these data. Fourteen year cumulative impact data for 10 leading

medical journals provide a quantitative indicator of their long term

influence. In the final analysis, impact simply reflects the ability of journals

and editors to attract the best papers available.

IMPACT FACTOR: A VALID MEASURE OF

JOURNAL QUALITY?

Somnath Saha, M.D., M.P.H., Assistant Professor,1 Sanjay Saint, M.D., M.P.H., Associate

Professor,2 and Dimitri A. Christakis, M.D., M.P.H., Assistant Professor3

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Impact factor, an index based on the frequency with

which a journal's articles are cited in scientific publications, is a

putative marker of journal quality. However, empiric studies on

impact factor's validity as an indicator of quality are lacking. The

authors assessed the validity of impact factor as a measure of

quality for general medical journals by testing its association with

journal quality as rated by clinical practitioners and researchers.

THE JOURNAL ―IMPACT FACTOR‖

A MISNAMED, MISLEADING, MISUSED

MEASURE

Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics, Volume 104, Issue 2, Pages 77-81, 15 July 1998

Misnamed, Misleading, Misused Measure

Frederick Hecht ,Barbara K Hecht Avery A Sandberg

Abstract

The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), a database publishing company that publishes

Current Contents and Science Citation Index, has devised and promulgated what it terms the

journal “impact factor.” ISI describes this factor as a “measure of the frequency with which

the „average article‟ in a journal has been cited in a particular year.” The factor is a ratio

between citations and recent citable published items calculated by dividing the number of

all current citations of items published in a journal during the preceding 2 years by the

number of articles published in those 2 years by that journal. What, if anything, is wrong

with the “impact factor”? There is absolutely nothing incorrect with the calculation of the

ratio itself. However, the “impact factor” is misnamed and misleading.

IMPACT FACTORS:

USE AND ABUSE

M. Amin & M. Mabe

Elsevier

Perspectives in Publishing, October 200, No.1.

The ISI® Journal Citation Reports (JCR®) impact factor has moved in recent years

from an obscure bibliometric indicator to become the chief quantitative measure

of the quality of a journal, its research papers, the researchers who wrote those

papers, and even the institution they work in. This pamphlet looks at the limitations

of the impact factor, how it can and how it should

not be used.

A DEFICIENCY IN THE ALGORITHM FOR CALCULATING

THE IMPACT FACTOR OF SCHOLARLY JOURNALS:

THE JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR

Péter Jacsó

(Department of Information and Computer Science, University of Hawai‟i at Mãnoa,Honolulu)

The Journal Citation Reports ® (JCR), published by the Institute for Scientific Information, annually ranks more than 6,500 science and social science journals, by calculating their impact factors (and many other useful measures) from the citations they receive from journals monitored by ISI in the Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) databases that process about 25 million citations annually.

THE LEVEL OF NON-CITATION OF ARTICLES WITHIN A

JOURNAL AS A MEASURE OF QUALITY: A

COMPARISON TO THE IMPACT FACTORBMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2004, 4:14DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-4-14

Andy R Weale , Mick Bailey and Paul A Lear

Abstract

Background

Current methods of measuring the quality of journals assume that citations of articles within journals are normally distributed. Furthermore using journal impact factors to measure the quality of individual articles is flawed if citations are not uniformly spread between articles. The aim of this study was to assess the distribution of citations to articles and use the level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality. This ranking method is compared with the impact factor, as calculated by ISI®.

IMPACT FACTORS: ARBITER OF

EXCELLENCE?

J MED LIBR ASSOC. 2003 JANUARY; 91(1): 4–6.

Martin Frank, Ph.D., Executive Director American Physiological Society 9650 Rockville Pike Bethesda,

Maryland 20814-3991

Several years ago, a young faculty member at a major university informed me that her department

chair had mandated that any faculty member seeking tenure should make sure to publish manuscripts

only in journals with an impact factor of 5.0 or greater. As the publisher of a large number of scientific

journals, I was offended by the effort of the chair to attempt to correlate the impact factor of the

journal with the impact, or excellence, of the faculty member's research. It was apparent that the chair

did not realize that impact factor, a bibliometric indicator developed by ISI, was not a measure of

scientific quality. Instead, it would have been more relevant to use the actual citation frequency of the

scientific paper in evaluating the work of individual scientists.

SENSE AND NONSENSE ABOUT THE IMPACT

FACTOR

Cardiovasc Res (1997) 33 (1): 1-7. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6363(96)00215-5.

Tobias Opthof

Abstract

The impact factor is based on citations of papers published

by a scientific journal. It has been published since 1961 by

the Institute for Scientific Information. It may be regarded as

an estimate of the citation rate of a journal's papers, and the

higher its value, the higher the scientific esteem of the

journal. Although the impact factor was originally meant for

comparison of journals, it is also used for assessment of the

quality of individual papers, scientists and departments. For

the latter a scientific basis is lacking, as we will demonstrate

in this contribution. .

CITATION RATES AND IMPACT FACTORS:

SHOULD THEY MATTER?

British Journal of Radiology 74 (2001),1-3 © 2001 The British Institute of Radiology G H Whitehouse, DSc, FRCP, FRCR

Introduction

It is our national joy to mistake for the first rate, the fecund rate. Dorothy Parker, 1893–1967

Standards of scientific work are most appropriately judged by peer review, meaning scrutiny only by experts in the particular field. When it comes to judging scientific output for a particular purpose, for example resource allocation to and within universities or for individual promotion and awards, the application of rigorous peer review is a time consuming process and true experts with available time are generally a scarce commodity. Quantitative measures of scientific output have therefore been sought as a more accessible alternative. Publication counts alone do not inform about the quality of scientific output but, so one theory goes, may do so when publication is in journals that are generally regarded as being of good repute. This has led to the practice of evaluation by citation rates and impact factors.

SHOULD WE DITCH IMPACT

FACTORS?

Gareth Williams, dean. BMJ. 2007 March 17; 334(7593): 568.

doi: 10.1136/bmj.39146.549225.BE.

Even advocates of impact factors admit that they are a flawed measure of quality. Gareth Williams believes we should get rid of them whereas Richard Hobbs thinks refinement is the answer.

Proper measurement of the quality of research requires a thorough understanding of the subject, balanced evaluation of evidence (which may take years to acquire), and ultimately consensus among experts. All in all, a tall order—as shown by the decades which the Nobel Prize Committee may take to recognize achievement and by the controversy which often follows its decisions.

HOW IMPACT FACTORS CHANGED

MEDICAL PUBLISHING—AND SCIENCE

Hannah Brown, freelance journalist. BMJ. 2007 March 17; 334(7593): 561–564. doi:

10.1136/bmj.39142.454086.AD.

George Lundberg spent the early 1980s lamenting the loss of his journal's once great

reputation. JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association), which he had taken

over in 1982, had been in decline since its peak of popularity in the 1960s. And a new set

of rankings that pitted medical journals against each other on the basis of article citations

now seemed to confirm that JAMA was a long way behind the best. To make his editorship

successful, Dr Lundberg needed a recovery strategy.

IMPACT OF BIBLIOMETRICS UPON THE SCIENCE

SYSTEM: INADVERTENT CONSEQUENCES?

Scientometrics, and Springer, Dordrecht Vol. 62, No. 1 (2005) 117.131

PETER WEINGART Institute for Science & Technology Studies, University of Bielefeld,

Bielefeld (Germany)

The introduction of bibliometric (and other) ranking is an answer to legitimation pressures

on the higher education and research system. After years of hesitation by scientists, science

administrators and even politicians in many of the industrialized countries, the

implementation of bibliometrics based (and other types of) rankings for institutions of

higher education and research is now being introduced on a full scale. What used to be an

irritation to the parties concerned has suddenly become a fad.

EL FACTOR DE IMPACTO DE LAS REVISTAS

CIENTÍFICAS: LIMITACIONES E INDICADORES

ALTERNATIVOS

Volume 16, Number 1 / January-February 2007 Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent A1, Juan Carlos Valderrama-Zurián A2, Gregorio González-Alcaide A3

Abstract:

Impact Factor measures the average number of times that articles published in the last two years are cited in the current year. In spite of its limitations, the evaluation agencies of some countries like Spain use it in research assessment, generating a deep unease within some circles that consider its use inappropriate and indiscriminate. As an alternative to the Impact Factor of Thomson ISI, other indicators have been proposed, although none of them have achieved sufficient acceptance and widespread use to be systematically applied. Among Spanish initiatives, most notable are the Potential Impact Factor of The Spanish Medical Journals, developed by the Siniac team (Information systems and research activity indicators) from the Instituto de Historia de la Ciencia y Documentación López Piñero(Valencia, Spain), and the Índice de impacto de las revistas españolas de ciencias sociales (In-Recs), developed by the EC3 research group at Library and Documentation department of Granada University (Spain).

ALGUNAS REFLEXIONES Y CONSIDERACIONES

SOBRE EL FACTOR DE IMPACTO

Arch Bronconeumol. 2003;39:409-17.JI de Granda Orive

Introducción

En general existe un desconocimiento de los indicadores

bibliométricos y, más específicamente, del factor de

impacto, utilizándose en muchas ocasiones de una manera

inadecuada. Esta reflexión nos sirve para realizar, en este

trabajo, algunas consideraciones sobre qué es y para qué

se utiliza el factor de impacto, así como las bases de datos

internacionales.

DIME CUÁNTO NOS CITAN Y TE DIRÉ... EL

FACTOR DE IMPACTO

BIBLIOGRÁFICO DE GACETA SANITARIA

NOTA EDITORIAL Gac Sanit v.17 n.3 Barcelona mayo-jun. 2003

¿Cómo se consigue la inclusión en el SCI? Responder que ésa es la «pregunta del millón» sería demasiado dilatorio... En palabras del ISI (www.isinet.com), la valoración de las revistas tiene varios componentes: su calidad formal, su periodicidad, su difusión, la calidad científica de sus editores y de los trabajos publicados, y, aunque se nos antoje un razonamiento circular, su visibilidad como revista citada: es decir, su FIB. Seguramente es algo más complicado, y aunque las normas del juego no están bien marcadas, la experiencia y las percepciones de otras revistas

EL IMPACTO DEL FACTOR DE IMPACTO:

¿MITO O REALIDAD?

Fidias E. Leon-Sarmiento, Martha E. Leon-S, Víctor A. Contreras Colomb Med 2007; 38(3):290-296

La evaluación de la producción científica latinoamericana ha pasado por varias etapas, siendo el factor de impacto numérico (FIN), el método más publicitado en la actualidad. Infortunadamente, dicho FIN no sirve para medir de forma adecuada, la ciencia que se basa en el prestigio sino que es, eminentemente, una manera de evaluar la popularidad de una revista científica. Una importante cantidad de sesgos idiomáticos, matemáticos y científicos en general, impiden el uso del FIN como medida bibliométrica latinoamericana

ALGUNAS PRECISIONES NECESARIAS EN

TORNO AL USO DEL FACTOR DE IMPACTO

COMO HERRAMIENTA DE EVALUACIÓN

CIENTÍFICA

Página del Editor

ACIMED v.13 n.5 Ciudad de La Habana sep.-oct. 2005

Con el objetivo de realizar un grupo de precisiones entorno al uso del factor de impacto como herramienta de evaluación académica, tanto de la literatura como de los especialistas, se estudió la importancia de las referencias bibliográficas en el trabajo científico, algunos factores que influyen en los índices de citación de los artículos, así como el factor de impacto: sus principales limitaciones y su empleo en la evaluación del quehacer académico. Finalmente, se ofrecen algunos consejos para obtener una publicación visible.

THE FOUR LITERATURES OF SOCIAL

SCIENCE

Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research,ed. H F Moed, Dordrecht, The Nederlands: Kluwer Academic (2004), 473-496

Diana Hicks: Professor and Chair of the School of Public Policy, Georgia Tech.

This chapter reviews bibliometric studies of the social sciences and humanities. The

premise of the chapter is that quantitative evaluation of research output in the social

sciences and humanities faces severe methodological difficulties. Bibliometric evaluations

are based on international journal literature indexed in the SSCI, but social scientists also

publish books, and write for national journals and for the non-scholarly press.

ASSESSMENT OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL

SCIENCES MONOGRAPHS THROUGH THEIR

PUBLISHERS: A REVIEW AND A STUDY TOWARDS

A MODEL OF EVALUATION

Elea Giménez-Toledo and Adelaida Román-Román

Research Evaluation, 18(3), September 2009, pages 201-213

This paper deals with the evaluation of monographs in the context of the special importance that they have as a means of communication of the results for human and social sciences research. First, a revision of some of the projects developed at institutions from various countries which have applied diverse methodologies and indicators to monographs, and in which the valuation of publishers has had a relevant position, is offered. Second, a working plan is presented, which includes a methodological proposal aimed at the evaluation of the prestige of publishers and based on a double consultation of lecturers and publishers which they consider as the most prestigious. Finally, the indicators applied in the various projects analyzed are discussed, concluding with the evident necessity of creating an evaluation method with multiple indicators.

CATEGORIZACIÓN DE LAS REVISTAS

ESPAÑOLAS DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES Y

HUMANAS EN RESH

Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 2008; 31 (1), 85-95 María Dolores Alcaín Partearroyo, Adelaida

Román Román

y Elea Giménez Toledo: Instituto de Estudios Documentales sobre Ciencia y Tecnología (IEDCYT, antes CINDOC).

El propósito de esta nota es comunicar y explicar las últimas mejoras incorporadas a la plataforma RESH,

sistema integrado de evaluación que se basa en diversos tipos de indicadores de calidad en relación con el

proceso editorial, la revisión por pares, la visibilidad internacional y los índices de impacto. El grupo que

desarrolla RESH ha estado trabajando en la puesta a punto de un sistema de baremación que adjudica

diferente peso a los indicadores que miden los diferentes aspectos de la calidad, con objeto de poder

construir listas jerarquizadas (ranking) de las revistas en el contexto de sus disciplinas y/o de sus áreas del

conocimiento. A partir de ahora, evaluadores, autores y editores podrán encontrar en RESH la posición que

ocupa cada revista en el contexto de su especialidad, así como los datos que dan origen a la posición final

alcanzada por cada revista.

CITATION CHARACTERISTICS OF

MONOGRAPHS IN THE FINE ARTS

Library Quarterly, 1992; 62 (3), 325-342

John Cullars: University of Illinois at Chicago

The purpose of this study is to determine the characteristics of citations found in monographs in the fine arts. A random sample of 581 citations was selected from 158 monographs published in 1985 and 1986 and indexed by RILA (Répertoire international de la littérature de l'art). Citations were classified as to source type (book, journal article, manuscript, thesis); primary or secondary source; language; date of publication; and the citing author's reason for making the citation. The findings of this study were then compared to those of other citation studies of the literature of the fine arts and of literary criticism. This study's findings are generally similar to those of other studies of citation patterns in the humanities, but citations to books were found to be somewhat less important and those to manuscripts somewhat more important than in earlier studies. The chronological spread of citations is more evenly distributed in fine arts monographs than in other areas of the humanities, though the greatest number of citations are to works published in the past twenty years.

CITATION CHARACTERISTICS OF ENGLISH-

LANGUAGE MONOGRAPHS IN PHILOSOPHY

Library & Information Science Research, Volume 20, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 41-68

John Cullars: University of Illinois at Chicago

This study examines 539 references from 183 single-authored philosophy

monographs, excluding collections of essays, published in 1994 and indexed by

Philosophers' Index, with each reference counted as frequently as it was cited in

the randomly selected citations. The citations were classified as to source type

(book, article in book, journal article, manuscript, thesis), language, the gender

of both citing and cited authors, the citing authors' attitudes toward the cited

material, the subject correlation between citing and cited sources, and the

chronology of the citations.

BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF EARLY MODERN HISTORY IN SPAIN

BASED ON BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES IN NATIONAL

SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS AND CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

Proceedings of ISSI 2007. 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics

and Informetrics. CSIC Madrid, Spain 27-27 June 2007. Madrid: CSIC, 2007, vol I. 266-271.

Francisco Fernández-Izquierdo*, Adelaida Román-Román, Cruz Rubio-Liniers**, Francisco-Javier

Moreno-Díaz-del-Campo*, Carmen Martín-Moreno, Carlos García-Zorita, Maria Luisa Lascurain-

Sánchez, Preiddy-Efraín García, Elisa Povedano and Elías Sanz-Casado.

This study evaluates the historians‟ work, with a selection of 1,282 source papers

published on early Modern History in Spain during 2000 and 2001 (417 articles

published in 15 journals, and 865 conference papers included in 14 different

proceedings, see references). They contained 44,471 bibliographic references citations

(with a repetition factor of 1.59) plus 19,269 references to archive documents or

manuscripts.

PEER REVIEW AND IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS WITH

PUBLISHERS AS A MEANS OF ASSESSING

QUALITY OF RESEARCH MONOGRAPHS

Excellence and Emergence: a New Challenge for the combination of Quantitative and

Qualitative Approaches. Book of Abstracts. 10th International Conference on Science

and Technology Indicators ,Vienna (Austria),September, 17-20 2008, 363-368.

Giménez-Toledo, E., & Román, A.: Instituto de Estudios Documentales sobre Ciencia y

Tecnología (IEDCYT, antes CINDOC).

It has often been observed that evaluating scientific activity in the Humanities and in some

of the Social Sciences needs to involve a study of monographs, as they are often the

preferred mean of publication by scientists in these fields. As well as being the most

frequently cited publication type, monographs are also the mean most often used to publish

research findings.

FROM EXPERIMENTATION TO COORDINATION IN THE

EVALUATION OF SPANISH SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS IN THE

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

Research Evaluation, Volume 16, Number 2, 1 June 2007 , pp. 137-148(12)

Giménez-Toledo, Elea; Román-Román, Adelaida; Maria Dolores Alcain-Partearroyo: Instituto de Estudios Documentales sobre Ciencia y Tecnología (IEDCYT, antes CINDOC).

An overview of current scientific journals evaluation initiatives in Spain is presented. Most of these models are focused on social sciences and humanities journals because of their special features, and are targeted to research evaluation activities. Indicators developed in these systems are analysed, including the methodological difficulties that they entail and the relative merits of each in terms of efficiency. Moreover, the criteria used by the evaluation agencies in relation to scientific journals are examined. Finally, a model based on a diverse range of indicators on editorial quality, international visibility, peer review and impact is proposed.

A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF REFERENCE

LITERATURE IN THE SCIENCES AND SOCIAL

SCIENCE

Information Processing and Management, 35 (1999) 31-44

Wolfgang Gläenzel: Max-Planck-Institute for the History of Science

Urs Schoepflin: Research Association for Science Communication and Information

e. V. (RASCI)

In earlier papers the authors focused on differences in the ageing of journal

literature in science and the social sciences. It was shown that for several fields

and topics bibliometric standard indicators based on journal articles need to be

modified in order to provide valid results. In fields where monographs, books or

reports are important means of scientific information, standard models of

scientific communication are not rejected by journal literature alone are also the

mean most often used to publish research findings.

PUBLICACIÓN Y EVALUACIÓN EN CHS

Publicación y evaluación en CHS

La internacionalidad viene condicionada por el

tema de investigación

Elección del idioma en función de los lectores

potenciales y del tema

Elección del medio adecuado: revista, libro, capítulo

Elección de la revista adecuada ¿debe primar el

cuartil o debe primar la especialidad de la revista

(de alta calidad)?

Publicación y evaluación en CHS

¿Es “excepcionalidad de las Humanidades” contemplar los canales de comunicación que le son propios?

Ingeniería y Arquitectura en CNEAI

Se tendrán en cuenta también los artículos publicados en revistas recogidas en bases de datos internacionales de ingeniería (como, por ejemplo, International Development Abstracts, International Civil Engineering Abstracts, Environmental Abstracts, Applied Mechanic Reviews).

(…) Los trabajos publicados en las actas de congresos que posean un sistema de revisión externa por pares, cuando estas actas sean vehículo de difusión del conocimiento comparable a las revistas internacionales de prestigio reconocido.

(…) Los desarrollos tecnológicos importantes cuyo reconocimiento sea demostrable.

(…) Los libros y capítulos de libros en cuya evaluación se tendrá en cuenta el número de citas cuando sea posible, el prestigio internacional de la editorial, los editores, la colección en la que se publica la obra y las reseñas en las revistas científicas especializadas.

Publicación y evaluación en CHS

No todas las disciplinas tienen el mismo patrón de

comportamiento

Ej. Geografía vs Psicología

Ej. Arqueología vs Filología

También los libros y capítulos tienen impacto

Book Citation Index (Thomson Reuters) ¿qué editoriales

cubrirá?

Factores de impacto en Humanidades como una

prueba más de que NO son el indicador definitivo

Ej. Factor de impacto. Filología clásica

ISSN Título de la revista Factor de impacto

1131-9062Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. Estudios Latinos 0.266

0013-6662Emerita. Revista de Lingüística y Filología Clásica 0.257

0018-0114Helmántica. Revista de Filología Clásica y Hebrea 0.167

1131-9070

Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. Estudios Griegos e

Indoeuropeos0.159

0213-9634 Minerva. Revista de Filología Clásica 0.150

0014-1453 Estudios clásicos 0.138

1578-7486 Revista de Estudios Latinos 0.136

0210-7570 Faventia 0.133

0213-1986Erytheia. Revista de Estudios Bizantinos Neogriegos 0.118

1131-8848

Florentia Iliberritana. Revista de Estudios de

Antigüedad Clásica0.118

1699-3225Exemplaria Classica. Journal of Classical Philology 0.082

0213-7674 Myrtia. Revista de Filología Clásica 0.024

Fuente: RESH (EPUC. EC3) epuc.cchs.csic.es/resh

Algunas preguntas finales

¿Estamos forzando los caminos de la investigación

en CHS?

¿Se ven condicionadas las líneas de investigación

por las exigencias de la evaluación científica?

CONCLUSIONES

Conclusiones

Necesidad de seguir contando con fuentes específicas para la evaluación de CHS

Necesidad de escuchar las reivindicaciones de la comunidad científica

Necesidad de coordinación entre los grupos de trabajo dedicados a la evaluación de la actividad científica

Necesidad de desarrollar metodologías para la evaluación de libros y capítulos de libros

G.I. especializados en evaluación de la ciencia

Peer review constante … y así debe ser.

MUCHAS GRACIAS