Evolution of the visibility of scholarly monographs in the academic field

Resumen

Scholarly monographs provide a good example to show the evolution of the impact that digital publishing has had over the last few decades in the transmission and communication of scientific information. On the one hand, in the area of Social Sciences and Humanities relevance in quantitative terms has been undermined, giving prominence to other document types such as research papers published in academic journals. Moreover, their visibility and accessibility have been conditioned by a number of factors that form an intrinsic part of the digital medium itself. Based on these two fundamental premises, this paper aims to analyze only the situation of scholarly monographs in institutional systems for research assessment and tenure, from the perspective of the various proposed requirements regarding accreditation for the different figures of university teaching staff and the request for Spanish recognition of six-year research periods.

Biografía del autor/a

José-Antonio Cordón-García, Universidad de Salamanca

Departamento de Bilioteconomía y Documentación

Citas

Barbier, Frederic (2015). Historia del libro. Madrid: Alianza. ISBN: 978 84 9104 049 1

Barclay, Donald A. (2015). “Academic print books are dying. What’s the future?”. The conversation. Rigor académico, oficio periodístico. University of California. https://theconversation.com/academic-print-books-are-dying-whats-the-future-46248

Bartling, Sönke; Friesike, Sascha (eds.) (2014). Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration, and scholarly publishing. Springer. ISBN: 978 3 319 00026 8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8

Bourdieu, Pierre (2015). Las reglas del arte: génesis y estructura del campo literario. Barcelona: Anagrama. ISBN: 978 84 330 1397 5

Cabezas-Clavijo, Álvaro; Torres-Salinas, Daniel (2015). Los sexenios de investigación. Barcelona: Editorial UOC; El profesional de la información. ISBN: 978 84 90645307

Darnton, Robert (2010). Las razones del libro: futuro, presente y pasado. Madrid: Trama. ISBN: 978 84 92755 36 3

FEP (2016). European book publishing statistics 2015. Federation of European Publishers. https://fep-fee.eu/European-Book-Publishing-823

FEP (2018). European book publishing statistics 2017. Federation of European Publishers. https://fep-fee.eu/IMG/pdf/european_book_publishing_statistics_2017-2.pdf

FGEE (2011). Comercio interior del libro en España 2011. Madrid: Federación de Gremios de Editores de España. https://www.federacioneditores.org/img/documentos/Comercio_Interior_2011.pdf

FGEE (2013). Hábitos de lectura y compra de libros 2012. Madrid: Federación de Gremios de Editores. https://www.federacioneditores.org/img/documentos/HabitosLecturaCompraLibros2012ESP_310113_1.pdf

FGEE (2018a). Comercio interior del libro en España 2017. Madrid: Federación de Gremios de Editores de España. https://www.federacioneditores.org/img/documentos/comercio_interior_2017.pdf

FGEE (2018b). Hábitos de lectura y compra de libros 2017. Madrid: Federación de Gremios de Editores de España. https://www.federacioneditores.org/img/documentos/HabitosLecturaCompraLibros2017.pdf

García-Aracil, Adela (2013). “Understanding productivity changes in public universities: Evidence from Spain”. Research evaluation, v. 22, n. 5, pp. 351-368. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt009

Giménez-Toledo, Elea (2016). Malestar. Los investigadores ante su evaluación. Madrid: Iberoamericana Vervuert. ISBN: 978 84 84898184

Giménez-Toledo, Elea; Tejada-Artigas, Carlos; Mañana-Rodríguez, Jorge (2012). “Evaluation of scientific books’ publishers in social sciences and humanities: Results of a survey”. Research evaluation, v. 22, n. 1, pp. 64-77. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs036

Hefce (2016). Publication patterns in research underpinning impact in REF2014. Digital Science. https://cutt.ly/y7fc4m

Hicks, Diana (2012). “Performance-based university research funding systems”. Research policy, v. 41, n. 2, pp. 251-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007

Hicks, Diana; Wouters, Paul; Waltman, Ludo; De-Rijcke, Sarah; Rafols, Ismael (2015). “El Manifiesto de Leiden sobre indicadores de investigación”. Revista iberoamericana de ciencia tecnología y sociedad, v. 10, n. 29, pp. 275-280. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=92438580012

Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo; De-Moya-Anegón, Félix; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2003). “The evolution of research activity in Spain. The impact of the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (Cneai)”. Research policy v. 32, n. 1, pp. 123-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00008-2

Jonkers, Koen; Zacharewicz, Thomas (2016). Research performance based funding systems: A comparative assessment. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre. https://doi.org/10.2760/70120

Jubb, Michael (2017). Academic books and their future. Arts and Humanities Research Council. British Library Academic. Book of the Future Project. https://academicbookfuture.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/academic-books-and-their-futures_jubb1.pdf

Kulczycki, Emanuel; Engels, Tim C. E.; Nowotniak, Robert (2017). “Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities in Flanders and Poland”. In: Proceedings of ISSI 2017 Wuhan: 16th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, Wuhan, China, 16-29 October 2017, pp. 95-104. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Publication-patterns-in-the-social-sciences-and-in-Kulczycki-Engels/ee260bc2395d14a29fa690663f690d0821e76005

Larivière, Vincent; Costas, Rodrigo (2016). “How many is too many? On the relationship between research productivity and impact”. PLoS one, v. 11, n. 9, e0162709. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/paper?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162709

Marini, Giulio (2018). “Tools of individual evaluation and prestige recognition in Spain: How sexenio ‘mints the golden coin of authority’”. European journal of higher education, v. 8, n. 2, pp. 201-214, https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2018.1428649

Matthews, David (2016). Academics shun books in favor of journal articles. THE World University Rankings. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/academics-shun-books-in-favour-of-journal-articles

Ministerio de Cultura (2013). Panorámica de la edición española de libros 2012. Madrid. https://www.cegal.es/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Panorámica-de-la-Edición-Española-de-Libros-2013.pdf

Ministerio de Cultura (2014). Panorámica de la edición española de libros 2013. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. https://www.cegal.es/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Panorámica-de-la-Edición-Española-de-Libros-2013.pdf

Ministerio de Cultura (2017). Panorámica de la edición española de libros 2016. Madrid. https://www.cegal.es/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Panorámica-de-la-Edición-Española-de-Libros-2016.pdf

Molas-Gallart, Jordi (2012). “Research governance and the role of evaluation: A comparative study”. American journal of evaluation, v. 33, n. 4, pp. 583-598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214012450938

Osuna, Carmen; Cruz-Castro, Laura; Sanz-Menéndez, Luis (2011). “Overturning some assumptions about the effects of evaluation systems on publication performance”. Scientometrics, v. 86, pp. 575-592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0312-7

Puuska, Hanna-Mari (2014). Scholarly publishing patterns in Finland: A comparison of disciplinary groups. Academic Dissertation. Tampere: Tampere University Press. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1003.9932&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Reisz, Matthew (2017). Worst sellers: warning of existential crisis for academic books. THE World University Rankings. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/worst-sellers-warning-existential-crisis-academic-books

Sivertsen, Gunnar (2014). “Scholarly publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities and their coverage in Scopus and Web of Science”. In: Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference, pp. 598-604. Universiteit Leiden. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297369590_Scholarly_publication_patterns_in_the_social_sciences_and_humanities_and_their_coverage_in_Scopus_and_Web_of_Science

Sivertsen, Gunnar; Larsen, Birger (2012). “Comprenhensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: An empirical analysis of the potential”. Scientometrics, v. 91, n. 2, pp. 567-575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0615-3

Valladares, Fernando; Rodríguez-Gironés, Miguel-Ángel; Magalhaes, Sara; Hortal, Joaquín; Moya, Jordi; Lloret, Francisco (2016). “Comunicación y divulgación, un exigente test de la polivalencia del científico”. Ciencia crítica, 21 octubre. http://www.eldiario.es/cienciacritica/Comunicacion_cientifica-divulgacion-cientifico_6_571902806.html

Verleysen, Frederik T.; Ghesquière, Pol; Engels, Tim C. E. (2014). “The objectives, design and selection process of the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW)”. In: Blockmans, Wim; Engwall, Lars; Weaire, Denis. Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance. London: Portland Press, pp. 117-127. ISBN: 978 1 85578 195 5 https://cutt.ly/y7fAoO

Williams, Geoffrey; Basso, Antonella; Galleron, Ioana; Lippiello, Tiziana (2018). “More, less or better: The problem of evaluating books in SSH research”. In: Bonaccorsi, Andrea (ed.). The evaluation of research in social sciences and humanities, pp. 133-158. Springer, Cham. ISBN: 978 3 319 68554 0 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_6

Wilsdon, James (2015). The metric tide: Independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473978782

Publicado
2019-08-06
Sección
Artículos de investigación / Research articles