Abstract
Research and scientific production are two interconnected areas that are proving to be increasingly important all over the world. We intend to analyze the evolution of scientific production in Portugal in the last 4 years, both in quality and in quantity. It is common for the evaluation of the quality of this production to be made using bibliometric indicators. However, these indicators tend to neglect some characteristics of some scientific areas, such as Engineering, Social Sciences and Humanities, resulting in a weaker assessment. In this paper, we compare metrics from different data sources (Scopus, SCImago, CWTS and InCites) and discuss their behavior. We also present two ways of assessing the quality of scientific production.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
All values shown correspond to average values.
References
Cwts journal indicators–methodology. https://www.journalindicators.com/methodology/. Accessed 12 Apr 2021
Measuring a journal’s impact–journal impact factor (jif). https://www.elsevier.com/authors/tools-and-resources/measuring-a-journals-impact. Accessed 12 Apr 2021
Scholarly publishing resources for faculty: Journal citation reports (impact factor, h-index). https://liu.cwp.libguides.com/c.php?g=45770 &p=1826739. Accessed 12 Apr 2021
Scimago help–understanding indicators, tables and charts. https://www.scimagojr.com/help.php. Accessed 12 Apr 2021
Tools to measure journal impact (impact factor)–eigenfactor. https://researchguides.uic.edu/if/impact. Accessed 12 Apr 2021
Bar-Ilan, J.: Which h-index?-a comparison of wos, scopus and google scholar. Scientometrics 74(2), 257–271 (2008)
Guerrero-Bote, V., Zapico-Alonso, F., Espinosa-Calvo, M., Gómez-Crisóstomo, R., de Moya-Anegón, F.: Import-export of knowledge between scientific subject categories: the iceberg hypothesis. Scientometrics 71(3), 423–441 (2007)
Guerrero-Bote, V.P., Moya-Anegón, F.: A further step forward in measuring journals’ scientific prestige: the SJR2 indicator. J. Informetr. 6(4), 674–688 (2012)
Kulkarni, A.V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., Busse, J.W.: Comparisons of citations in web of science, scopus, and google scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 302(10), 1092–1096 (2009)
Lancho-Barrantes, B., Guerrero-Bote, V., Moya-Anegón, F.: The iceberg hypothesis revisited. Scientometrics 85(2), 443–461 (2010)
Lancho-Barrantes, B.S., Guerrero-Bote, V.P., Moya-Anegón, F.: What lies behind the averages and significance of citation indicators in different disciplines? J. Inf. Sci. 36(3), 371–382 (2010)
Larivière, V., Archambault, É., Gingras, Y., Vignola-Gagné, É.: The place of serials in referencing practices: comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57(8), 997–1004 (2006)
Levine-Clark, M., Gil, E.L.: A comparative citation analysis of web of science, scopus, and google scholar. J. Bus. Financ. Librariansh. 14(1), 32–46 (2008)
Lundberg, J.: Lifting the crown-citation z-score. J. Informetr. 1(2), 145–154 (2007)
Merediz-Solà, I., Bariviera, A.F.: A bibliometric analysis of bitcoin scientific production. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 50, 294–305 (2019)
Michener, W.K., Brunt, J.W.: Ecological Data: Design, Management and Processing. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)
Moed, H.F.: The source-normalized impact per paper (snip) is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact. arXiv preprint arXiv:1005.4906 (2010)
Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A.: The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106(1), 213–228 (2016)
Montoya, F.G., Alcayde, A., Baños, R., Manzano-Agugliaro, F.: A fast method for identifying worldwide scientific collaborations using the scopus database. Telemat. Inform. 35(1), 168–185 (2018)
Noorden, R.V.: Global scientific output doubles every nine years (2014). http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/05/global-scientific-output-doubles-every-nine-years.html. Accessed 05 Apr 2021
Ramin, S., Shirazi, A.S.: Comparison between impact factor, scimago journal rank indicator and eigenfactor score of nuclear medicine journals. Nuclear Med. Rev. 15(2), 132–136 (2012)
Salimi, N.: Quality assessment of scientific outputs using the BWM. Scientometrics 112(1), 195–213 (2017)
Seglen, P.O.: Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314(7079), 497 (1997)
Ugolini, D., et al.: Scientific production in cancer rehabilitation grows higher: a bibliometric analysis. Support. Care Cancer 20(8), 1629–1638 (2012)
Elsevier Connect (2016). https://www.elsevier.com/connect/editors-update/citescore-a-new-metric-to-help-you-choose-the-right-journal. Accessed 06 Apr 2021
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia within the R &D Units Project Scope: UIDB/00319/2020.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Alves, I., Analide, C., Vaz, F. (2022). Scientific Production in Portuguese Public Universities. In: Novais, P., Carneiro, J., Chamoso, P. (eds) Ambient Intelligence – Software and Applications – 12th International Symposium on Ambient Intelligence. ISAmI 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 483. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06894-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06894-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-06893-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-06894-2
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)