scientific publishers are increasingly interested in learning more about their influence in academia. Hence they are appearing new tools through projects such as Measure, COUNTER or bibliometrics Usage. To learn more deeply this issue, I attended a recent article Subscribed Information, by Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo and Daniel Torres-Salinas (1).
The publisher has implemented a unique set of indicators to measure the use of its publications. Specifically, we are 23 indicators that can be placed in the following four groups:
-user interaction and participation (comments, rating items)
-Use Articles (downloads the file; visits or access to full text free download)
-Diffusion in Web 2.0 (links and citations of articles in specialized portals for scientific blogs, bookmarks or tagging social)
-traditional Recognition (quotations)
The analysis of the results of the indicators has identified the following issues:
"The poor implementation that has the Web 2.0 community scientific. The links on science blogs and labeling are poorly incorporated into the routines of scientists.
-Following the same path, comments and scores of articles are rarely used. This and the lack of implementation of Web 2.0 could be explained by the particular competitive and hermetic science. Nobody wants to give the slightest help to other researchers or antagonizing an editorial.
"So the indicators continue to be imposed to determine the impact of a publication or an article are traditional: the number of visits and downloads, and number of citations.
"On the other hand, the authors seem that it shows that the number of citations to the articles in PLoS journals (eg that may be extrapolated to many other publications reservations Open Access) is reduced. So the relevance of the articles or their impact in the scientific community is not optimal.
Gratuity still seems to be hardly worth taken into account in the scientific world, which prefers to spend significant sums of money as long as access to relevant publications and authors. No doubt the field of science has nothing to do with the needs and tastes of the general public (which perhaps should be no surprise).
Note1: Cabezas-Clavijo, and Alvaro Torres-Salinas, Daniel Indicators of use and participation in scientific journals 2.0: the case of PLoS One The Professional Information, 2010, vol. 19, n.4
0 comments:
Post a Comment