Gallardo SY, Gallardo ARL, Fonseca AM, Ortiz SFE

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 131-143
PDF size: 255.94 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: the analysis and evaluation of information and knowledge resulting from scientific activity is an essential element for all public research programs.
Objective: to characterize the visibility and productivity of the Medical Journal Multimed from Granma province through scienciometric variables based on data on Google Scholar.
Material and methods: a bibliometric study was carried out. The variables used were scientometrics indicators provided by the database that was used. The number of articles published was related to the number of authors participating in the research. The articles quoted, number of citations, authors and year were revealed. The search for the indicators was done by entering in the navigation box of Publish or Perish the name of the medical journal and it’s ISSN (International Serial Standard Number).
Results: in the four years that were taken as reference for the analysis of the indicators, 392 articles were published, of which only 13 were cited in a total of 16 bibliographic cites. The h index of 2 was equal to the g index; 141 articles were published with three authors and in minor amount with one author and more than five. Only three articles showed more quotations from the thirteen that contributed.
Conclusions: scientific indicators that obstruct visibility and productivity are shown. Articles with a low number of authors predominated, reflecting the standards of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and there were few cited works that benefited the indicators studied.

REFERENCES

1. García Raga M, Algas Hechavarría LA, Rodríguez Suárez CM, Espinosa Guerra AI. La investigación en salud hacia una mirada bioética. MULTIMED [Internet]. 2014 [citado 22 Jun 2016]; 18(1). Disponible en: http://www.revmultimed.sld.cu/index.php/mtm/article/view/19/15.

2. Arencibia Jorge R. Visibilidad internacional de la ciencia y educación superior cubanas. [Tesis doctoral]. Granada-La Habana: Editorial de la Universidad de Granada; 2010 [citado 22 Jun 2016]. Disponible en: https://hera.ugr.es/tesisugr/19563784.pdf.

3. Luquez L, Iraola MD. Publicaciones médicas procesadas en las bases de datos Pubmed y Cumed: Cienfuegos 1998-2007. Enc Bibli: R Eletr Bibliotecon Ci Inf [Internet]. 2009 [citado 22 Jun 2016]; 14(27):146-69. Disponible en: https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/viewFile/1518-2924.2009v14n27p146/19692.

4. García AA, González J, Dorta AJ. Indicadores cienciométricos de la Revista 16 de abril. Rev 16 de Abril [Internet]. 2015 [citado 22 Jun 2016]; 54(260):25-30. Disponible en: http://www.rev16deabril.sld.cu/index.php/16_04/article/view/412/pdf_91.

5. Harzing AW. Publish or Perish [Internet]. London: Middlesex University; 2007. [citado 22 Jun 2016]. Disponible en: http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm.

6. Sidiropoulos A, Katsaros D, Manolopoulos Y. Generalized h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics 2007; 72(2):253-80.

7. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS 2005; 102:16569-72.

8. Publish or Perish User's Manual. Melbourne: Tarma Software Research; 2007.

9. Jin BH. The AR-index: complementing the h-index. ISSI Newsletter 2007; 3(1):6.

10. Schreiber M. To share the fame in a fair way, hm modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. New J Phys [Internet]. 2008[citado 22 Jun 2016]; 10. Disponible en: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/040201/pdf.

11. Batista PD, Campiteli MG, Kinouchi O, Martinez AS. Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics 2006; 68(1):179-89. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.926.2343&rep=rep1&type=pdf

12. Egghe L, Rousseau R. An informetric model for the Hirsch-index. Scientometrics 2006; 69(1):121-9. https://doclib.uhasselt.be/dspace/bitstream/1942/943/1/An%20informetric%20model%20Scientometrics.pdf

13. Egghe L. Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics 2006; 69(1): 131-52.

14. Cañedo R, Nodarse M, Cruz J, Germán I, Celorrio I, Guerrero JC. Papel de la colaboración científica en el impacto de la investigación en salud de Cuba en el contexto de América Latina. Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud [revista en Internet]. 2015 [citado 2016 Jun 22]; 27(1): [aprox. 0 p.]. Disponible en:http://www.acimed.sld.cu/index.php/acimed/article/view/831

15. LÓPEZ GT, GONZÁLEZ O. Estudio bibliométrico de la Revista CorSalud. Biblios: Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, [S.l.], n. 52, p. 16-26, oct. 2013. ISSN 1562-4730. Disponible en: . Fecha de acceso: 22 jun. 2016 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/biblios.2013.126.

16. Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Biblioteca e Informática CRAI. Cómo encontrar el índice h de Hirsch. Disponible en: http://www.upf.edu/bibtic/es/guiesiajudes/eines/avalua/ih.html 17. Benet M, Morejón A. Posicionamiento de las revistas científicas de la salud en Cuba según el índice H5 obtenido del Google Scholar Metrics. Medisur [revista en Internet]. 2016 [citado 2016 Jun 24]; 14(2): [aprox. 8 p.]. Disponible en:http://medisur.sld.cu/index.php/medisur/article/view/3254

17. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Biblioteca Universitaria. Indicadores o índices de la producción científica. Jun 2016 [citado 2016 jun 23]. Disponible en: http://biblioteca.ulpgc.es/factor_impacto

18. Ferriols R, Ferriols F. Escribir y publicar un artículo científico original. Ediciones Mayo S.A. Madrid 2005.p.23-24.

19. GÓMEZ-GARCÍA, Almudena et al. ESTUDIO BIBLIOMÉTRICO DE EDUCACIÓN XX1 (BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF EDUCACIÓN XX1). Educación XX1, [S.l.], v. 15, n. 1, may. 2012. ISSN 2174-5374. Disponible en: . Fecha de acceso: 23 jun. 2016 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.15.1.148.

20. Silva GA. La autoría múltiple y la autoría injustificada en los artículos científicos. Investigación en Salud. Agosto 2005 [citado 2016 Jun 23]; VII (002):p.84-90.