2020, Number 4
<< Back Next >>
Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED) 2020; 31 (4)
Impact of an information sciences doctoral program on Cuba's ranking in international databases
Arencibia-Jorge R, Peralta-González MJ, Ponjuán-Dante G
Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 1-18
PDF size: 1103.10 Kb.
ABSTRACT
The year 2006 saw the onset of a project aimed at speeding up information sciences doctoral training in Cuba. The Scientific Information and Documentation Doctoral Program, developed by the University of Granada, Spain, and the University of Havana, graduated a total 50 Cuban and two Latin American PhDs in ten years. The project was geared to updating and strengthening research activity in the country, as well as increasing the publication of papers in scientific journals of broad international visibility. The purpose of the present study was to determine with a bibliometric approach the impact of this doctoral program on national scientific productivity levels and the country's regional and worldwide ranking in the field of library and information sciences. The country's ranking was found to have improved in the databases Web of Science and Scopus. Identification was made of the proportion of studies stemming from the doctoral program with respect to the total volume of Cuban scientific production about the specialty in the period 2006-2019. One third of the national scientific production in both databases was generated by graduates from the three groups making up the program. Cuba has thus been able to occupy in recent years a sustained position among the first 50 countries worldwide and the first five Latin American countries in the specialty.
REFERENCES
Baldwin AA, Brown CE, Trinkle BS. Accounting doctoral programs: a multidimensional description. Adv Account Educ. 2010;11:101-28.
De Meuse KP. The relationship between research productivity and perceptions of doctoral program quality. Profes Psychol: Res Pract. 1987;18(1):81.
Kahn JH, Scott NA. Predictors of research productivity and science-related career goals among counseling psychology doctoral students. The Counseling Psychologist. 1997;25(1):38-67.
Jiménez-Contreras E, Ruiz-Pérez R, López-Cózar ED. El análisis de las tesis doctorales como indicador evaluativo: reflexiones y propuestas. Rev Invest Educ. 2014;32(2):295-308.
Stephens NM, Summers SL, Williams B, Wood DA. Accounting doctoral program rankings based on research productivity of program graduates. Acc Horiz. 2011;25(1):149-81.
Smeltzer SC, Cantrell MA, Sharts-Hopko NC, Heverly MA, Jenkinson A, Nthenge S. Assessment of the impact of teaching demands on research productivity among doctoral nursing program faculty. J Profess Nurs. 2016;32(3):180-92.
Smeltzer SC, Sharts-Hopko NC, Cantrell MA, Heverly MA, Wise N, Jenkinson A. Perceptions of academic administrators of the effect of involvement in doctoral programs on faculty members' research and work-life balance. Nurs outl. 2017;65(6):753-60.
Smeltzer SC, Sharts-Hopko NC, Cantrell MA, Heverly MA, Wise NJ, Jenkinson A, et al. Challenges to research productivity of doctoral program nursing faculty. Nurs Outl. 2014;62(4):268-74.
Flagg D, Gilley OW, Park JC. Job market signaling: what drives the productivity of finance Ph.Ds? Fin Manag. 2011;40(2):483-513.
Falaster C, Ferreira MP, Serra FR. The research productivity of new Brazilian PhDs in management: A few "star" performers outshine a mass of low performers. Emer Insig. 2016 [acceso: 10/11/2020];14(1). Disponible en: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MRJIAM-11-2015-0619/full/html?journalCode=mrjiam&
Smith TE, Jacobs KS, Osteen PJ, Carter TE. Comparing the research productivity of social work doctoral programs using the h-Index. Scientometrics. 2018;116(3):1513-30.
Fernández-Cano A, Torralbo M, Vallejo M. Time series of scientific growth in Spanish doctoral theses (1848-2009). Scientometrics. 2012;91(1):15-36.
Zong QJ, Shen HZ, Yuan QJ, Hu XW, Hou ZP, Deng SG. Doctoral dissertations of Library and Information Science in China: A co-word analysis. Scientometrics. 2013;94(2):781-99.
Jiménez RS, Ochando MB, Montesi M, Botezan I. La producción de tesis doctorales en España (1995-2014): evolución, disciplinas, principales actores y comparación con la producción científica en WoS y Scopus. Rev Esp Docum Cient. 2017;40(4):188.
Maity BK, Hatua SR. Research trends of library management in LIS in India since 1950-2012. Scientometrics. 2015;105(1):337-46.
Mugica MMM, Columbié RL, Salomón YP. La investigación cubana en Ciencias de la Información: el caso de los estudios de posgrado (2008-2018). Bibliot An Invest. 2019;15(2):212.
Piedra Salomón Y, Ponjuán Dante G. Patrones de colaboración científica del Programa Doctoral en Bibliotecología y Documentación Científica (2007-2017). Conferencia: IX Encuentro Ibérico EDICIC; 2019. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27881.34409
Piedra-Salomón Y, Ponjuán-Dante G. Examen temático de la formación doctoral cubana en Ciencias de la Información: Estudio de caso. Rev Bras Educ Ciên Inform. 2018;5(2):3-24.
Tramullas J. Temas y métodos de investigación en Ciencia de la Información, 2000-2019. Revisión bibliográfica. Prof Inform. 2020;29(4):e290417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.jul.17
Martín-Martín A, Thelwall M, Orduna-Malea E, Delgado López-Cozar E. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations' COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics. 2020; 106(2):787-804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
Galbán-Rodríguez E, Torres-Ponjuán D, Martí-Lahera Y, Arencibia-Jorge R. Measuring the Cuban scientific output in scholarly journals through a comprehensive coverage approach. Scientometrics. 2019;121(2):1019-43.
Arencibia-Jorge R, Peralta González MJ. Recomendaciones sobre el uso de Scopus para el estudio de las Ciencias de la Información en América Latina. Iberoam J Sci Measur Comm. 2020;1(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.47909/ijsmc.07
Full text