RESUMO
Scientists have always looked for ways to evaluate research results to recognize and reward their efforts, and to support decisions regarding programs and public policies. The metrics of scientific impact have become, in recent decades, the driving force behind the academic environment. The work of researchers, scientific journals, databases and publishers, research institutions, and funding agencies is driven by the impact of the research they produce, publish, index, promote and finance. Bibliometric indicators are widely used for the evaluation of scientific output, despite the lack of a clear relationship between citations and quality, impact, or scientific merit. Furthermore, the relationship is even less evident regarding innovation, which is an inherent characteristic of scientific research. This article describes the main types of metrics used to evaluate scientific output, as well as its features, potentials, and limitations.
Los científicos siempre buscaron formas de evaluar los resultados de las investigaciones para reconocer y premiar sus esfuerzos, y para apoyar decisiones en programas y políticas públicas. Las medidas o métricas de impacto de la ciencia se transformaron, en las últimas décadas, en el motor propulsor del ambiente académico. Investigadores, revistas científicas, bases de datos y casas editoriales, instituciones de investigación y agencias de financiación tienen su trabajo gobernado por el impacto de la investigación que producen, publican, indexan, promueven y financian. Se utilizan largamente indicadores bibliométricos para la evaluación de la producción científica, a pesar de la falta de relación inequívoca entre citas y calidad, impacto o mérito científico. Además, cuando se considera la innovación, característica inherente de la investigación científica, la relación es todavía más desconectada. En este artículo se describen los tipos principales de métricas utilizadas para evaluar la producción científica, sus características, potenciales y limitaciones.
Assuntos
Política PúblicaRESUMO
Despite the large amount of information available on the Internet, getting valid scientific information and evidence may not be a simple task. The aim of this study was to identify the different databases, search engines and libraries available to retrieve published scientific information in health sciences Database publication type. A search on Altavista, Google and Yahoo, Ixquick and Copérnico metasearch engines and in the database "Documents in Information Science" (DoIS) was performed. The search strategy used the terms "database management systems", "medical informatics", "search engine" and "decision making". A summary document of the information collected was created. Addresses found were grouped into: databases, search engines and libraries. The search performed returned 46 electronic resources: 25 databases, 8 search engines and 13 libraries. There is a variety of resources for searching health scientific information. Knowing the diversity of available options aids the user in access to information to generate research and health-related decision-making.
A pesar de la gran cantidad de información disponible en Internet, la obtención de información científica válida y evidente puede no ser una tarea sencilla. El objetivo fue identificar las diferentes bases de datos, motores de búsqueda y bibliotecas disponibles para recuperar la información científica publicada en ciencias de la salud. Estudio de publicación de base de datos. Se realizó una búsqueda en los metabuscadores Altavista, Google, Yahoo, Ixquick y Copérnico, y en la base de datos "Documents in Information Science" (DoIS). La estrategia de búsqueda utilizó los términos "sistemas de gestión de base de datos", "informática médica", "motor de búsqueda" y "toma de decisiones". Se creó un documento de síntesis de la información recogida. Las direcciones halladas se agruparon en: bases de datos, motores de búsqueda y bibliotecas. A partir de la búsqueda realizada se encontraron 46 fuentes electrónicas: 25 bases de datos, 8 motores de búsqueda y 13 bibliotecas. Existe una gran variedad de recursos para la búsqueda de información científica en salud. Conocer la diversidad de opciones disponibles en el acceso a la información ayuda al usuario para llevar adelante su investigación y para poder realizar la toma de decisiones relacionada con la salud.
Assuntos
Informática Médica , Bases de Dados Bibliográficas , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Ferramenta de Busca , Tomada de DecisõesRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The journal Impact factor (IF) is generally accepted to be a good measurement of the relevance/quality of articles that a journal publishes. In spite of an, apparently, homogenous peer-review process for a given journal, we hypothesize that the country affiliation of authors from developing Latin American (LA) countries affects the IF of a journal detrimentally. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Seven prestigious international journals, one multidisciplinary journal and six serving specific branches of science, were examined in terms of their IF in the Web of Science. Two subsets of each journal were then selected to evaluate the influence of author's affiliation on the IF. They comprised contributions (i) with authorship from four Latin American (LA) countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico) and (ii) with authorship from five developed countries (England, France, Germany, Japan and USA). Both subsets were further subdivided into two groups: articles with authorship from one country only and collaborative articles with authorship from other countries. Articles from the five developed countries had IF close to the overall IF of the journals and the influence of collaboration on this value was minor. In the case of LA articles the effect of collaboration (virtually all with developed countries) was significant. The IFs for non-collaborative articles averaged 66% of the overall IF of the journals whereas the articles in collaboration raised the IFs to values close to the overall IF. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The study shows a significantly lower IF in the group of the subsets of non-collaborative LA articles and thus that country affiliation of authors from non-developed LA countries does affect the IF of a journal detrimentally. There are no data to indicate whether the lower IFs of LA articles were due to their inherent inferior quality/relevance or psycho-social trend towards under-citation of articles from these countries. However, further study is required since there are foreseeable consequences of this trend as it may stimulate strategies by editors to turn down articles that tend to be under-cited.