Abstract
In collaboration with the managers of a university, we have conducted an action research to gauge the adequacy of texts written by researchers in the doctoral programs of the institution as the input (content) for the university’s distance learning program. For the analyses, bibliometric data were collected regarding the articles in question from the regional SciELO repository. This repository was chosen because the articles are mostly published in Portuguese, which is in the domain of the target readership of the distance learning project. It was observed that there was a need for an indicator that related the number of downloads of an article to the total number of downloads of the journal in which it was published. Thus, we propose the D-index, defined as the number of papers with download number ≥d, as a useful index for characterizing the academic popularity (hits) of a journal. The first applications of the D-index in terms of professional practice were positive, given its usefulness and practicality. The D-index aids the analysis of the download of an article, which is a fundamental event for subsequent reading, internalization and learning. An analysis of this set of actions is essential to the context of regional repositories, as their mission also includes the dissemination of information to aid the learning and education of their readers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Archambault, E., & Larivière, V. (2009). History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences. Scientometrics, 79(3), 635–649.
Arunachalam, S. (2003). Information for research in developing countries: Information technology, a friend or foe? The International Information & Library Review, 35(2/4), 133–147.
Aschenbrenner, A., Blanke, T., Hedges, M., & Flanders, D. (2008). The future of repositories? Patterns for (cross-) repository architectures. D-Lib, 14(11/12). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november08/aschenbrenner/11aschenbrenner.html.
Askar, M., Imam, S., & Prabhaker, P. R. (2009). Business metrics: A key to competitive advantage. Advances in Competitiveness Research, 17(1), 91–109.
Bartneck, C., & Kokkelmans, S. (2011). Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 87(1), 85–98.
Beigel, F. (2014). Current tensions and trends in the World Scientific System: Alternative circuits and new forms of peripheriality. Current Sociology, 62(5), 617–625.
Buckland, S. T., Studeny, A. C., Magurran, A. E., Illian, J. B., & Newson, S. E. (2011). The geometric mean of relative abundance indices: A biodiversity measure with a difference. Ecosphere, 2(9), 1–15.
Buse, A. (1973). Goodness of fit in generalized least squares estimation. The American Statistician, 27, 106–108.
Colquitt, J., & George, G. (2011). From the editors—Publishing in AMJ—part 1: Topic choice. The Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 432–435.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Day, R. A. (1998). How to write and publish a scientific paper (5th ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Dewatripont, M., Ginsburgh, V., Legros, P., Walckiers, A., Devroey, J. P., Dujardin, M., et al. (2006). Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf.
Dutta, A. (2001). Telecommunications and economic activity: An analysis of granger causality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 71–96.
Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for management research. British Journal of Management, 7(1), 75–86.
Education First. (2014). EF English proficiency index. http://www.ef.edu/epi/.
Eichler, M., & Didelez, V. (2010). On granger causality and the effect of interventions in time series. Lifetime Data Analysis, 16(1), 3–32.
Ferrara, E., & Romero, A. E. (2013). Scientific impact evaluation and the effect of self-citations: Mitigating the bias by discounting the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(11), 2332–2339.
Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factors: A brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161(8), 979–980.
Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424–438.
Guédon, J.-C. (2011). El acceso abierto y la división entre ciencia “principal” y “periférica”. Crítica y emancipación, 3(6), 135–180.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.
Kasprowski, R. (2008). Best practice and standardization initiatives for managing electronic resources. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 35(1), 13–19.
Kennison, R., Shreeves, S. L., & Harnad, S. (2013). Point & counterpoint: The purpose of institutional repositories: Green OA or beyond? Journal of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication, 1(4), 1–7.
Kuchma, I., & Rosenblum, B. (2010). Report on open repository development in developing and transition countries. Rome: EIFL. http://www.eifl.net/system/files/resources/201408/evaluation_report_on_irs_june.pdf.
McCown, F., Liu, X., Nelson, M. L., & Zubair, M. (2006). Search engine coverage of the OAI-PMH corpus. IEEE Internet Computing, 10(2), 66–73.
McGrath, H., & O’Toole, T. (2012). Critical issues in research design in action research in an SME development context. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(5), 508–526.
Ministry of Education. (2013). Censo da Educação Superior 2013. http://download.inep.gov.br/educacao_superior/censo_superior/apresentacao/2014/coletiva_censo_superior_2013.pdf.
Moed, H. F. (2005). Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1088–1097.
Moore, R. E. (1996). Ranking income distributions using the geometric mean and a related general measure. Southern Economic Journal, 63(1), 69–75.
Packer, A. L., et al. (2014). Scielo: 15 anos de acesso aberto. Paris: UNESCO. doi:10.7476/9789237012376.
Panitch, J. M., & Michalak, S. (2005). The serials crisis, UNC-Chapel Hill Scholarly Communications Convocation. http://www.unc.edu/scholcomdig/whitepapers/panitch-michalak.html.
Pelaez, R. F. (1991). Valuation of earnings using historical growth-discount rates. Journal of Forensic Economics, 5(1), 27–44.
Schwartzman, S. (2012). Brazil: Federal higher education at risk. Inside Higher ED. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/world-view/brazil-federal-higher-education-risk.
Stallings, D. (2001). The virtual university: Organizing to survive in the 21st century. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(1), 3–14.
Tripp, D. H. (1990). Socially critical action research. Theory Into Practice, 29(3), 158–166.
Tripp, D. H. (2005). Action research: A methodological introduction. Educação e Pesquisa, 31(3), 443–466.
Webster, A. L. (2012). A granger causality test of the hayek-friedman hypothesis: Must political freedom and economic freedom coexist? The Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 13(5), 64–75.
West, C. (2011). Action research as a professional development activity. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(2), 89–94.
Wical, S. H., & Vandenbark, R. T. (2015). Combining citation studies and usage statistics to build a stronger collection. Library Resources & Technical Services, 59(1), 33–42.
Williams, D. A. (1987). Generalized linear model diagnostics using the deviance and single-case deletions. Applied Statistics, 36(2), 181–191.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: SciELO Repository
The Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) repository is an initiative for open access to scientific texts by Latin America and Caribbean countries. It was developed during a joint project by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) and the Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (BIREME). Its first publications appeared in 1998. In July of 2015, the SciELO publications amounted to 1268 scientific journals in a number of fields, developed and managed by research institutions in fourteen countries, namely Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Uruguay and Venezuela. Despite this diversity, most of the scientific journals (344) are Brazilian, and the repository is mostly accessed from Brazil. Most of the articles are in Portuguese or Spanish.
Technologically, these journals make their metadata available using the standards of Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) and Extensible Markup Language (XML). This enables the automatic collection and registration of SciELO metadata through the application of Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) technologies (McCown et al. 2006). In spite of the technological advances for publication and dissemination, “most of the periodicals indexed by SciELO have low international impact in comparison with journals published in developed countries, based on the number of citations their articles receive in international citation indexing services such as Web of Science and Scopus” (Packer 2014, p. 19). SciELO journals suffer a symptomatic problem of low visibility, as reported by Arunachalam (2003) when analyzing scientific journals published in developing countries.
Appendix 2: Downloads and citations of articles from the seven journals
List of articles in descending order | Scientific journals | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BAR | EBAPE | JISTEM | RAC | |||||
Most CITED | Total citations | % Cumulative citations | Total citations | % Cumulative citations | Total citations | % Cumulative citations | Total citations | % Cumulative citations |
1st decile | 531 | 44.3 | 1012 | 70.7 | 505 | 61.6 | 6836 | 59.8 |
Up to 2nd decile | 777 | 64.8 | 1321 | 92.2 | 660 | 80.5 | 9361 | 81.8 |
Up to 3rd decile | 941 | 78.5 | 1432 | 100.0 | 752 | 91.7 | 10,667 | 93.2 |
Up to 4th decile | 1057 | 88.2 | 1432 | 100.0 | 803 | 97.9 | 11,285 | 98.6 |
Up to 5th decile | 1128 | 94.1 | 1432 | 100.0 | 820 | 100.0 | 11,440 | 100.0 |
Up to 6th decile | 1174 | 97.9 | 1432 | 100.0 | 820 | 100.0 | 11,440 | 100.0 |
Up to 7th decile | 1197 | 99.8 | 1432 | 100.0 | 820 | 100.0 | 11,440 | 100.0 |
Up to 8th decile | 1199 | 100.0 | 1432 | 100.0 | 820 | 100.0 | 11,440 | 100.0 |
Up to 9th decile | 1199 | 100.0 | 1432 | 100.0 | 820 | 100.0 | 11,440 | 100.0 |
For 100 % of the articles | 1199 | 100.0 | 1432 | 100.0 | 820 | 100.0 | 11,440 | 100.0 |
Most DOWNLOADED | Total download | % Cumulative download | Total download | % Cumulative download | Total download | % Cumulative download | Total download | % Cumulative download |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1st decile | 98,490 | 42.1 | 192,783 | 44.0 | 104,016 | 42.2 | 3,274,025 | 53.6 |
Up to 2nd decile | 139,818 | 59.7 | 272,787 | 62.3 | 149,973 | 60.9 | 4,368,646 | 71.6 |
Up to 3rd decile | 167,239 | 71.4 | 325,722 | 74.4 | 179,334 | 72.8 | 5,002,491 | 82.0 |
Up to 4th decile | 189,127 | 80.8 | 364,291 | 83.2 | 202,123 | 82.0 | 5,421,790 | 88.8 |
Up to 5th decile | 205,595 | 87.8 | 392,227 | 89.5 | 218,872 | 88.8 | 5,702,803 | 93.4 |
Up to 6th decile | 218,103 | 93.1 | 411,762 | 94.0 | 231,175 | 93.8 | 5,893,071 | 96.6 |
Up to 7th decile | 226,809 | 96.8 | 425,029 | 97.0 | 239,478 | 97.2 | 6,008,234 | 98.4 |
Up to 8th decile | 231,277 | 98.7 | 433,435 | 98.9 | 244,223 | 99.1 | 6,070,514 | 99.5 |
Up to 9th decile | 233,330 | 99.6 | 436,972 | 99.8 2 | 45,871 | 99.8 | 6,098,867 | 99.9 |
For 100 % of the articles | 234,209 | 100.0 | 438,047 | 100.0 | 246,345 | 100.0 | 6,103,152 | 100.0 |
List of articles in descending order | Scientific journals | Average per decile | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RAE | RAM | RAP | |||||
Most CITED | Total citations | % Cumulative citations | Total citations | % Cumulative citations | Total citations | % Cumulative citations | Citations |
1st decile | 5742 | 64.5 | 1307 | 65.6 | 6762 | 55.1 | 60.2 |
Up to 2nd decile | 7449 | 83.7 | 1718 | 86.2 | 8929 | 72.8 | 80.3 |
Up to 3rd decile | 8308 | 93.4 | 1896 | 95.2 | 10,240 | 83.5 | 90.8 |
Up to 4th decile | 8711 | 97.9 | 1989 | 99.8 | 11,154 | 90.9 | 96.2 |
Up to 5th decile | 8859 | 99.6 | 1992 | 100.0 | 11,809 | 96.3 | 98.6 |
Up to 6th decile | 8896 | 100.0 | 1992 | 100.0 | 12,112 | 98.8 | 99.5 |
Up to 7th decile | 8896 | 100.0 | 1992 | 100.0 | 12,249 | 99.9 | 100.0 |
Up to 8th decile | 8896 | 100.0 | 1992 | 100.0 | 12,264 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Up to 9th decile | 8896 | 100.0 | 1992 | 100.0 | 12,264 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
For 100 % of the articles | 8896 | 100.0 | 1992 | 100.0 | 12,264 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Most DOWNLOADED | Total download | % Cumulative download | Total download | % Cumulative download | Total download | % Cumulative download | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1st decile | 1,441,355 | 61.5 | 164,403 | 46.0 | 1,109,839 | 51.4 | 48.7 |
Up to 2nd decile | 1,809,786 | 77.3 | 224,164 | 62.7 | 1,519,092 | 70.4 | 66.4 |
Up to 3rd decile | 2,010,453 | 85.8 | 264,632 | 74.1 | 1,756,682 | 81.4 | 77.4 |
Up to 4th decile | 2,134,135 | 91.1 | 295,281 | 82.6 | 1,906,278 | 88.3 | 85.3 |
Up to 5th decile | 2,213,645 | 94.5 | 318,993 | 89.3 | 2,012,520 | 93.2 | 90.9 |
Up to 6th decile | 2,266,738 | 96.8 | 335,710 | 93.9 | 2,080,348 | 96.4 | 94.9 |
Up to 7th decile | 2,302,964 | 98.3 | 347,258 | 97.2 | 2,119,398 | 98.2 | 97.6 |
Up to 8th decile | 2,326,258 | 99.3 | 353,650 | 99.0 | 2,141,530 | 99.2 | 99.1 |
Up to 9th decile | 2,338,632 | 99.8 | 356,438 | 99.7 | 2,153,602 | 99.8 | 99.8 |
For 100 % of the articles | 2,342,222 | 100.0 | 357,336 | 100.0 | 2,158,564 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
De Sordi, J.O., Conejero, M.A. & Meireles, M. Bibliometric indicators in the context of regional repositories: proposing the D-index. Scientometrics 107, 235–258 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1873-x
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1873-x