ABSTRACT
Introducción: Las redes sociales son el mejor exponente de la llamada Web 2.0. donde personas o entidades se relacionan a través de plataformas, mediante las que pueden comunicarse de forma rápida y simultánea, así como compartir recursos de información y documentación de cualquier tipo. En el momento actual investigadores e instituciones hacen uso de todo tipo de redes para establecer vínculos. Objetivos: Caracterizar los objetivos y elementos que definen las redes académicas, las ventajas y desventajas que presentan y el modo de uso, entre otros aspectos. Material y Método: Se efectuó una extensa búsqueda bibliográfica sobre esta temática que abarcó Sitios Web, libros y revistas, durante los últimos cinco años. Los documentos obtenidos fueron clasificados y evaluados de acuerdo a su pertinencia y calidad. Desarrollo: Se comienza por caracterizar los objetivos y particularidades de la Web 2.0 y algunas formas de obtener información científico técnica para posteriormente introducir las peculiaridades de las Redes Sociales y las Redes Sociales Académicas realizando una particular distinción con las Redes Académicas de investigación que existen en nuestra área, se presentan y discuten las técnicas que se utilizan actualmente para evaluar la calidad de la producción científica de los investigadores. Conclusiones: considerando la novedad y utilidad que representan estas herramientas se considera que este informe puede resultar de interés para investigadores y público en general por el lenguaje asequible conque ha sido redactado(AU)
Introduction: Social networks are the best exponent of the so-called Web 2.0, where people or entities related through platforms can communicate quickly and simultaneously, to share information and documentation resources of any kind. Currently researchers and institutions use networks to establish links. Objective: Characterize the objectives and elements of academic networks, the advantages and disadvantage they present and the way of use, among other aspects. Method: We made an extensive literature search on this subject that included Web sites, books and magazines during the past five years. The documents obtained were classified and evaluated according to their relevance and quality. Development: The objectives and particularities of Web 2.0 are stated, as well as some ways of obtaining scientific and technical information to later introduce the peculiarities of Social Networks and Academic Social Networks, making a particular distinction with the Academic Research Networks that exist in our area. Techniques currently used to assess the quality of the scientific output of researchers are presented and discussed. Conclusions: Considering the novelty and usefulness of these tools, it is considered that this report may be of interest to researchers and the general public due to the affordable language with which it has been written(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Social Networking , Social Media , Scholarly Communication , Metric System/standardsABSTRACT
Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: (1) to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; (2) to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and (3) to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF. Methods: Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency. Results: For objective (1), 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective (2), 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective (3), 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF. Conclusion: JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties.(AU)