Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers' Perceptions in Spain.

Empirical studies have revealed a disturbing prevalence of research misconduct in a wide variety of disciplines, although not, to date, in the areas of ethics and philosophy. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on perceptions of how serious a problem research misconduct is in these two disciplines in Spain, particularly regarding the effects that the model used to evaluate academics' research performance may have on their ethical behaviour. The methodological triangulation applied in the study combines a questionnaire, a debate at the annual meeting of scientific association, and in-depth interviews. Of the 541 questionnaires sent out, 201 responses were obtained (37.1% of the total sample), with a significant difference in the participation of researchers in philosophy (30.5%) and in ethics (52.8%); 26 researchers took part in the debate and 14 interviews were conducted. The questionnaire results reveal that 91.5% of the respondents considered research misconduct to be on the rise; 63.2% considered at least three of the fraudulent practices referred to in the study to be commonplace, and 84.1% identified two or more such practices. The researchers perceived a high prevalence of duplicate publication (66.5%) and self-plagiarism (59.0%), use of personal influence (57.5%) and citation manipulation (44.0%), in contrast to a low perceived incidence of data falsification or fabrication (10.0%). The debate and the interviews corroborated these data. Researchers associated the spread of these misconducts with the research evaluation model applied in Spain.

Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations' COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations.

New sources of citation data have recently become available, such as Microsoft Academic, Dimensions, and the OpenCitations Index of CrossRef open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI). Although these have been compared to the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS), Scopus, or Google Scholar, there is no systematic evidence of their differences across subject categories. In response, this paper investigates 3,073,351 citations found by these six data sources to 2,515 English-language highly-cited documents published in 2006 from 252 subject categories, expanding and updating the largest previous study. Google Scholar found 88% of all citations, many of which were not found by the other sources, and nearly all citations found by the remaining sources (89-94%). A similar pattern held within most subject categories. Microsoft Academic is the second largest overall (60% of all citations), including 82% of Scopus citations and 86% of WoS citations. In most categories, Microsoft Academic found more citations than Scopus and WoS (182 and 223 subject categories, respectively), but had coverage gaps in some areas, such as Physics and some Humanities categories. After Scopus, Dimensions is fourth largest (54% of all citations), including 84% of Scopus citations and 88% of WoS citations. It found more citations than Scopus in 36 categories, more than WoS in 185, and displays some coverage gaps, especially in the Humanities. Following WoS, COCI is the smallest, with 28% of all citations. Google Scholar is still the most comprehensive source. In many subject categories Microsoft Academic and Dimensions are good alternatives to Scopus and WoS in terms of coverage.

Metrics in academic profiles: a new addictive game for researchers? / Métricas en perfiles académicos: ¿un nuevo juego adictivo para los investigadores?

This study aims to promote reflection and bring attention to the potential adverse effects of academic social networks on science. These academic social networks, where authors can display their publications, have become new scientific communication channels, accelerating the dissemination of research results, facilitating data sharing, and strongly promoting scientific collaboration, all at no cost to the user.One of the features that make them extremely attractive to researchers is the possibility to browse through a wide variety of bibliometric indicators. Going beyond publication and citation counts, they also measure usage, participation in the platform, social connectivity, and scientific, academic and professional impact. Using these indicators they effectively create a digital image of researchers and their reputations.However, although academic social platforms are useful applications that can help improve scientific communication, they also hide a less positive side: they are highly addictive tools that might be abused. By gamifying scientific impact using techniques originally developed for videogames, these platforms may get users hooked on them, like addicted academics, transforming what should only be a means into an end in itself.

OBJETIVO: Pretende este trabajo provocar la reflexión y alertar de los posibles peligros para la ciencia que encierran las nuevas redes sociales académicas que tanto éxito están teniendo en nuestros días. Las redes sociales académicas donde los autores pueden mostrar sus publicaciones se han convertido en nuevos canales de comunicación científica, pues agilizan la diseminación de los resultados de investigación, facilitan la compartición de datos y fomentan la colaboración científica de forma extensa sin coste alguno. Una de las novedades principales de estas plataformas, que es lo que las hace enormemente atractivas para los investigadores, consiste en la disponibilidad de una amplia batería de indicadores bibliométricos que van más allá del conteo de publicaciones y citas pues permiten medir el uso, la participación, la conectividad social y el impacto científico, académico y profesional. Sobre estos indicadores se está construyendo la propia imagen y reputación digital de los científicos. Pues bien, todos estos beneficios de las redes sociales académicas en la mejora de la comunicación científica esconden un lado no tan positivo para la ciencia. Se trata de herramientas muy peligrosas, que pueden convertirse en auténticas adicciones. Mediante la gamificación del impacto científico a través de persuasivas técnicas procedentes de los videojuegos, estas plataformas pueden hacer que los usuarios queden enganchados, como académicos adictos, convirtiendo lo que es un medio en un fin en sí mismo.

Métricas en perfiles académicos: ¿un nuevo juego adictivo para los investigadores? / Metrics in academic profiles: a new addictive game for researchers?

Pretende este trabajo provocar la reflexión y alertar de los posibles peligros para la ciencia que encierran las nuevas redes sociales académicas que tanto éxito están teniendo en nuestros días. Las redes sociales académicas donde los autores pueden mostrar sus publicaciones se han convertido en nuevos canales de comunicación científica, pues agilizan la diseminación de los resultados de investigación, facilitan la compartición de datos y fomentan la colaboración científica de forma extensa sin coste alguno. Una de las novedades principales de estas plataformas, que es lo que las hace enormemente atractivas para los investigadores, consiste en la disponibilidad de una amplia batería de indicadores bibliométricos que van más allá del conteo de publicaciones y citas pues permiten medir el uso, la participación, la conectividad social y el impacto científico, académico y profesional. Sobre estos indicadores se está construyendo la propia imagen y reputación digital de los científicos. Pues bien, todos estos beneficios de las redes sociales académicas en la mejora de la comunicación científica esconden un lado no tan positivo para la ciencia. Se trata de herramientas muy peligrosas, que pueden convertirse en auténticas adicciones. Mediante la gamificación del impacto científico a través de persuasivas técnicas procedentes de los videojuegos, estas plataformas pueden hacer que los usuarios queden enganchados, como académicos adictos, convirtiendo lo que es un medio en un fin en sí mismo (AU)

This study aims to promote reflection and bring attention to the potential adverse effects of academic social networks on science. These academic social networks, where authors can display their publications, have become new scientific communication channels, accelerating the dissemination of research results, facilitating data sharing, and strongly promoting scientific collaboration, all at no cost to the user. One of the features that make them extremely attractive to researchers is the possibility to browse through a wide variety of bibliometric indicators. Going beyond publication and citation counts, they also measure usage, participation in the platform, social connectivity, and scientific, academic and professional impact. Using these indicators they effectively create a digital image of researchers and their reputations. However, although academic social platforms are useful applications that can help improve scientific communication, they also hide a less positive side: they are highly addictive tools that might be abused. By gamifying scientific impact using techniques originally developed for videogames, these platforms may get users hooked on them, like addicted academics, transforming what should only be a means into an end in itself (AU)

Cumplimiento de los criterios sobre autoría científica en las revistas españolas de biomedicina y ciencias de la salud incluidas en los Journal Citation Reports / Fulfilment of the criteria about scientific authorship in Spanish biomedical and health science journals included in Journal Citation Reports

Fundamentos: Las revistas científicas tienen reconocida la potestad de asegurar la validez del conocimiento difundido y la de certificar la autoría de las ideas. El objetivo de este trabajo es explorar en qué medida las políticas editoriales de las revistas contribuyen a asegurar la veracidad de la autoría científica publicada. Métodos: Análisis descriptivo transversal de los criterios sobre autoría científica utilizados por 23 revistas españolas de medicina incluidas en los Journal Citation Reports de 2008 y valoración de su ajuste de cumplimiento a los requisitos de uniformidad URM del ICMJE. Para su análisis los criterios se han estructurado en ítemes observables y para cuantificar su ajuste a los URM se han establecido seis niveles de cumplimiento. Resultados: El 52% de las revistas no hacen referencia a los URM. Sobre el ítem atribución de autoría el 39% de las revistas ofrece información sobre las condiciones que deben cumplir los firmantes de un artículo, pero solo 6 (26%) revistas se ajustan a los URM. Sobre el ítem de responsabilidades contraídas se pronuncia el 61%, aunque ninguna revista se acerca a las formulaciones URM. En cuanto al número de autores por trabajo se encontró información en el 35% de las revistas y sobre el orden de firma en ninguna. El ítem sobre agradecimientos está recogido en el 61% pero solo el 30,4% definen su finalidad. Sobre la indicación de responsabilidad de correspondencia la presencia de criterios alcanza el 87%, sin embargo solo el 8,7% de las revistas lo vinculan al autor principal o primer firmante. Conclusiones: Como promedio de los 6 ítemes analizados, solo el 48% de las revistas incluyen alguna o varias instrucciones relacionadas con la autoría científica. Los resultados muestran escasa uniformidad en los criterios proporcionados a pesar a la existencia de los URM como estándar internacional en medicina(AU)

Background: Scientific journals have been recognized to have the authority to register both the ownership of ideas and the validity of published knowledge. This paper explores the extent to which the editorial policies of journals contribute to ensure the accuracy of scientific authorship. Methods: Cross-sectional study of scientific authorship criteria used by 23 Spanish medical journals included in Journal Citation Reports 2008 and evaluation of their fulfilment to the uniformity requirements URM of ICMJE. Criteria have been structured in observational items and six levels of fulfilment have been established in order to quantify its adjustment to URM. Results: 52% of journals do not make a reference to URM, 39% only provides some information on the conditions to be respected by the signatories of an article and only 26% (6 magazines) comply with URM. 61% of the journals declare information regarding the responsibility contracted by authors. 35% of the journals give some type guidelines as to the number of authors but no one mentions signature order. As for acknowledgments and corresponding address instructions, 61% declare it but 30,4% only properly formulate their aims. Conclusions: Only 48% of the journals include one or some instructions related with scientific authorship. Results coincide with those of other studies. Despite the existence of an international standard such as URM, authorship criteria provided by journals are scarce and uneven. The assertion that URM is universally well-known by medical journals is questioned(AU)

[Principles and criteria used by the National Evaluation Committee of Research Activity (CNEAI-Spain) for the assessment of scientific publications: 1989-2009]. / Principos y criterios utilizados en España por la Comisión Nacional Evaluadora de la Actividad Investigadora (CNEAI) para la valoración de las publicaciones científicas: 1989-2009.

Study of the origins, philosophy and history of the criteria used to assess research activities in Spain by the CNEAI. The assessment criteria and quality evidence of publications is discussed. Results are presented on the temporal development of the criteria used, grouped by publication type (articles and books) and fields of knowledge. Between 1989-1996, assessment was based on the definition and goals set by the Spanish scientific framework and on general criteria. Between 1996-2004, the formulation of indicators began to be almost exclusively based on Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Success rates up to 2004 indicate that the evaluation criteria and publishing behaviour matched the "hard sciences", but not the Social Sciences and Economics. In 2005, the criteria used were further developed and reoriented with an eye to softening the preceding JCR-centrism by taking into consideration other databases and defining the quality criteria to be met by journals, books and conferences not included in JCR. Correspondingly, the success rates for 2007 indicate a dramatic recovery in Economics. In the last 4 years, Humanities and Social Sciences have consolidated the further opening of the criteria used with the addition of new benchmarks and the full integration of books.

Investigación de excelencia en España: ¿protagonistas o papeles secundarios? / Research excellence in Spain: main or secondary roles for researchers?

No disponible

No disponible

[Fulfilment of the criteria about scientific authorship in Spanish biomedical and health science journals included in Journal Citation Reports]. / Cumplimiento de los criterios sobre autoría científica en las revistas españolas de biomedicina y ciencias de la salud incluidas en los Journal Citation Reports.

BACKGROUND: Scientific journals have been recognized to have the authority to register both the ownership of ideas and the validity of published knowledge. This paper explores the extent to which the editorial policies of journals contribute to ensure the accuracy of scientific authorship. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of scientific authorship criteria used by 23 Spanish medical journals included in Journal Citation Reports 2008 and evaluation of their fulfilment to the uniformity requirements URM of ICMJE. Criteria have been structured in observational items and six levels of fulfilment have been established in order to quantify its adjustment to URM. RESULTS: 52% of journals do not make a reference to URM, 39% only provides some information on the conditions to be respected by the signatories of an article and only 26% (6 magazines) comply with URM. 61% of the journals declare information regarding the responsibility contracted by authors. 35% of the journals give some type guidelines as to the number of authors but no one mentions signature order. As for acknowledgments and corresponding address instructions, 61% declare it but 30,4% only properly formulate their aims. CONCLUSIONS: Only 48% of the journals include one or some instructions related with scientific authorship. Results coincide with those of other studies. Despite the existence of an international standard such as URM, authorship criteria provided by journals are scarce and uneven. The assertion that URM is universally well-known by medical journals is questioned.

Principios y criterios utilizados en España por la Comisión Nacional Evaluadora de la Actividad Investigadora (CNEAI) para la valoración de las publicaciones científi cas: 1989-2009 / Principles and criteria used by the National Evaluation Committee of Research Activity (CNEAI-Spain) for the assessment of scientific publications: 1989-2009

Estudio sobre los orígenes, filosofía y trayectoria de los criterios de evaluación de la actividad investigadora utilizados en España por la CNEAI. Se analizan los criterios de valoración e indicios de calidad de las publicaciones. Se presentan los criterios en su desarrollo temporal, estructurados por tipo de publicaciones (artículos y libros) y campos de conocimiento. Se concluye que hasta 1996 la evaluación se sustenta en la definición y objetivos del sistema y en criterios generales. Entre 1996-2004 se inicia la formulación de los indicadores de calidad de la investigación, quedando asociados casi exclusivamente con las publicaciones de impacto (revistas JCR). Las tasas de éxito hasta 2004 indican que criterios de evaluación y comportamientos de publicación correlacionan en las «ciencias duras», pero no en Sociales ni en Economía. En 2005 se desarrollan y reorientan los criterios para suavizar el JCR-centrismo precedente, considerando otras bases de datos y definiendo los criterios de calidad homologables que deben cumplir revistas, libros y congresos. Las tasas de éxito de 2007 indican una recuperación espectacular en Economía. En los 4 últimos años se ha consolidado la apertura de los criterios con la incorporación de nuevos índices de referencia y la plena integración de los libros (AU)

Study of the origins, philosophy and history of the criteria used to assess research activities in Spain by the CNEAI. The assessment criteria and quality evidence of publications is discussed. Results are presented on the temporal development of the criteria used, grouped by publication type (articles and books) and fields of knowledge. Between 1989- 1996, assessment was based on the definition and goals set by the Spanish scientific framework and on general criteria. Between 1996-2004, the formulation of indicators began to be almost exclusively based on Journal Citation Reorts (JCR). Success rates up to 2004 indicate that the evaluation criteria and publishing behaviour matched the «hard sciences», but not the Social Sciences and Economics. In 2005, the criteria used were further developed and reoriented with an eye to softening the preceding JCR-centrism by taking into consideration other databases and defining the quality criteria to be met by journals, books and conferences not included in JCR. Correspondingly, the success rates for 2007 indicate a dramatic recovery in Economics. In the last 4 years, Humanities and Social Sciences have consolidated the further opening of the criteria used with the addition of new benchmarks and the full integration of books (AU)

[Medline criteria for scientific journals selection. Methodology and indicators. Application to Spanish medical journals paying special attention to public health]. / Criterios Medline para la selección de revistas científicas. Metodología e indicadores. Aplicación a las revistas médicas españolas con especial atención a las de salud pública.

Due to the strict selection process applied to its indexed journals, Medline is the most prestigious database in the Health and medicine field. The aim of this paper is both to analyze its selection criteria and translate into indicators that can be applied to Spanish medical journals willing to enter the Index Medicus. Analysis samples and methodology to apply obtained from the five groups of criteria considered by Medline (namely, Scope and coverage, Quality of contents, Quality of editorial work, Production quality and Audience) are proposed. A list of qualitative and quantitative indicators related to the five groups of criteria used by Medline is presented; namely, journal scientific output in the national and international context of the discipline, citation, analysis of the editorial committees, the editorial process and the peer-review system, indicators on compliance with the Vancouver guidelines, journal layout and informational quality, attractiveness, audience, journal visibility and interest as regards Medline goals.

Criterios Medline para la selección de revistas científicas. Metodología e indicadores. Aplicación a las revistas médicas españolas con especial atención a las de salud pública / Medline criteria for scientific journals selection. Methodology and indicators. Application to Spanish medical journals paying special attention to public health

Debido en buena parte a los rigurosos procesos de selección queaplica a las revistas que indiza, Medline es la base de datos en Biomedicinay Ciencias de la Salud más prestigiosa del mundo. El objetivode este trabajo es analizar sus criterios de selección y traducirlosen indicadores para su aplicación a las revistas médicas españolascandidatas a ingresar en el Index-Medicus. Se proponen lasmuestras de análisis y la metodología a aplicar derivada de los cincogrupos de criterios contemplados por Medline: Ámbito y Cobertura;Calidad del Contenido; Calidad del Trabajo Editorial; Calidad deProducción y Audiencia. Propuesta de indicadores cualitativos ycuantitativos. Ámbito y Cobertura: indicadores que muestran lapujanza productiva de la revista en el ámbito nacional e internacionalde la especialidad. Calidad del Contenido: análisis de la revista yde sus protagonistas a partir de las citas internacionales que han recibidosus trabajos y de los Factores de Impacto (FI). Calidad TrabajoEditorial: indicadores relativos a los responsables de la política editorialy científica de la revista, a los procesos editoriales y al sistemade revisión de originales que aplica. Indicadores relacionados con elcumplimiento de las directrices Vancouver. Calidad de Producción:indicadores sobre calidad gráfica e informativa de la revista (estándaresinternacionales). Audiencia: indicadores sobre atracción,audiencia, visibilidad e interés de la revista para los objetivos quepersigue Medline

Due to the strict selection process applied to its indexed journals,Medline is the most prestigious database in the Health andmedicine field. The aim of this paper is both to analyze its selectioncriteria and translate into indicators that can be applied to Spanishmedical journals willing to enter the Index Medicus. Analysis samplesand methodology to apply obtained from the five groups of criteriaconsidered by Medline (namely, Scope and coverage, Qualityof contents, Quality of editorial work, Production quality andAudience) are proposed. A list of qualitative and quantitative indicatorsrelated to the five groups of criteria used by Medline is presented;namely, journal scientific output in the national and internationalcontext of the discipline, citation, analysis of the editorialcommittees, the editorial process and the peer-review system, indicatorson compliance with the Vancouver guidelines, journal layoutand informational quality, attractiveness, audience, journal visibilityand interest as regards Medline goals

La Revista Española de Salud Pública ingresa en el Social Science Citation Index de Thomson Scientific / The Revista Española de Salud Pública in the Social Science Citation Index de Thomson Scientific

No disponible