Plataformas online y redes sociales para la creación de perfiles de investigación

Clara López-Hermoso; María Victoria Gil-Navarro; Laila Abdel-Kader-Martín; Bernardo Santos-Ramos

doi:10.7399/fh.11304

Plataformas online y redes sociales para la creación de perfiles de investigación

Clara López-Hermoso, María Victoria Gil-Navarro, Laila Abdel-Kader-Martín, Bernardo Santos-Ramos

Resumen

Hoy en día, la comunicación científica se está viendo enriquecida debido a la utilización de nuevos modos de almacenamiento, publicación y difusión de los resultados. Entre ellos se encuentran las denominadas plataformas de perfiles académicos, dentro de las cuales se encuadrarían Scopus author ID, ORCID, Publons y Kudos y, por otro lado, las redes sociales de investigación, entre las que se incluirían ResearchGate, Academia. edu y Google Scholar citations. Estas herramientas tienen como principal objetivo aumentar la visibilidad e impacto de los contenidos y publicaciones. Son páginas web multidisciplinares que contienen perfiles investigadores individuales con hipervínculos en red a revistas, bases de datos y otras fuentes. En algunos casos incluyen indicadores bibliométricos, que permiten medir el impacto causado por un trabajo a partir de la literatura. En este artículo se comparan las principales plataformas online, así como algunas de las redes sociales de investigación que existen hoy día para la creación de perfiles de investigación.

Palabras clave

Plataformas online; Redes sociales de investigación; Perfil de investigador; Visibilidad; Difusión

Texto completo:

PDF (English) PDF

Referencias

Peters HP, Dunwoody S, Allgaier J, Lo YY, Brossard D. Public communication of science 2.0. EMBO reports. 2014:e201438979. DOI: 10.15252/embr.201438979

Rivas JG, Socarras MR, Blanco LT. Social media in Urology: Opportunities, applications, appropriate use and new horizons. Cent European J Urol. 2016;69:293-8.

Rivas JG, Socarras MR, Patruno G, Uvin P, Esperto F, Dinis PJ, et al. Perceived role of social media in urologic knowledge acquisition among young urologists: A European Survey. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4:768-73.

Gómez-Rivas J, Rodríguez-Socarrás ME, Tortolero-Blanco L, García-Sanz M, Álvarez-Maestro M, Ribal MJ, et al. Influence of social networks on congresses of urological societies and associations: Results of the 81th National Congress of the Spanish Urological Association. Actas Urol Esp. 2017;41:181-7.

Van Noorden R. Online collaboration: scientists and the social network. Nature. 2014;512:126-9.

Fernández-Marcial V, González-Solar L. Promoción de la investigación e identidad digital: el caso de la Universidade da Coruña. El profesional de la información. 2015;24(5):656-64.

Paiva CE, Araujo RL, Paiva BS, de Pádua-Souza C, Cárcano FM, Costa MM, et al. What are the personal and professional characteristics that distinguish the researchers who publish in high- and low-impact journals? A multi-national web-based survey. Ecancermedicalscience. 2017;11:718.

Gasparyan AY, Nurmashev B, Yessirkepov M, Endovitskiy DA, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Researcher and Author Profiles: Opportunities, Advantages, and Limitations. J Korean Med Sci. 2017;32(11):1749-56.

Scopus homepage [webpage]. USA: Elsevier; 30/12/2016 [01/01/2019; 15/04/2019]. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/howscopus-works

Orcid homepage [webpage]. USA: Orcid Company; 17/05/2013 [07/12/2018; 16/04/2019]. Available at: https://orcid.org/statistics

Publons homepage [webpage]. USA: Clarivate analytics company; 04/05/2012 [07/05/2019; 20/09/2019]. Available at: https://publons.com

Kudos homepage [webpage]. Oxfordshire, United Kingdom: 09/11/2013 [30/11/2018; 16/04/2019]. Available at: https://blog.growkudos.com/2018/11/30/mobeus/

Researchgate homepage [webpage]. Berlin, Germany: ReserchGate GMBH; 01/11/2018 [28/03/2019; 19/04/2019]. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net

Academia.edu homepage [webpage]. USA: Academia.edu Company; 02/02/2010 [28/03/2019; 19/04/2019]. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/

Gusenbauer M. Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases. Scientometrics. 2019;118(1):177-214.

Yuen J, Muquit S, Whitfield PC. Correlation between cost of publication and Journal Impact. Comprehensive cross-sectional study of exclusively open-access surgical journals. J Surg Educ. 2019;76(1):107-19.

Measuring your research impact: i10-Index [webpage]. New York: Cornell University Library; 15/02/2018 [11/02/2019; 18/04/2019]. Available at: http://guides.library.cornell.edu/c.php?g=32272&p=203393

PlumX Metrics homepage [webpage]. USA: Editorial Elsevier; 07/07/2018 [10/01/2019; 16/04/2019]. Available at: https://blog.scopus.com/topics/plumx-metrics

Warren HR, Raison N, Dasgupta P. The Rise of Altmetrics. JAMA. 2017;317(2): 131-2.

Torres-Salinas D, Jiménez-Contreras E. Introducción y estudio comparativo de los nuevos indicadores de citación sobre revistas científicas en Journal Citation Reports y Scopus. El profesional de la información. 2010;19:201-17.

Cabezas Clavijo A, Torres-Salinas D. Políticas científicas e indicadores bibliométricos. EC3metrics Spin Off. Granada: Universidad de Granada; 2014.

Masic I, Begic E. Biomedical Scientific and Professional Social Networks in the Service of the Development of Modern Scientific Publishing. Acta Inform Med. 2016;24(6):409-12.

Traill CL, Januszewski AS, Larkins RG, Keech AC, Jenkins AJ. Time to research Australian female physician-researchers. Intern Med J. 2016;46:412-9.

Butler D. Scientists: your number is up. Nature. 2012;485:564.

Haak LL, Fenner M, Paglione L, Pentz E, Ratner H. ORCID: a system to uniquely identify researchers. Learn Publ. 2012;25:259-64.

Wilson B, Fenner M. Open researcher & contributor ID (ORCID): solving the name ambiguity problem. Educause Rev. 2012;47:1-4.

Marx W. Tracking historical papers and their citations. Eur Sci Ed. 2012;38:35-7.

Gasparyan AY, Akazhanov NA, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Systematic and open identification of researchers and authors: focus on open researcher and contributor ID. J Korean Med Sci. 2014;29:1453-6.

Anstey A. How can we be certain who authors really are? Why ORCID is important to the British Journal of Dermatology. Br J Dermatol. 2014;171:679-80.

Beall J. Is it time to retire researcherID? [webpage]. Seattle, Washington: Emerald City Journal; 29/12/2016 [11/12/2018; 15/04/2019]. Disponible en http://www.emeraldcityjournal.com/2016/12/is-it-time-to-retire- researcherid/

Sammour T. Publons.com: credit where credit is due. ANZ J Surg. 2016;86(6): 512-3.

Schneditz D, Slaughter MS. Announcing Publons to enhance reviewer experience. ASAIO J. 2017;63:235.

Culley T. Publons and ScholarOne to streamline reviewer recognition [webpage]. USA: Scholarone; 21/09/2016 [15/12/2017; 10/04/2019]. Available at: https://publons.com/blog/scholarone/

Repiso R, Robinson-García N. Publons, aprovechando el poder de la revisión por pares. Anuario ThinkEPI. 2018;12:299-303.

Rajpert-De Meyts E, Losito S, Carrell DT. Rewarding peer- review work: the Publons initiative. Andrology. 2016;4:985-6.

Al-Aufi A, Fulton C. Impact of social networking tools on scholarly communication: a cross-institutional study. The Electronic Library. 2015;33(2):224-41.

Williams AJ, Peck L, Ekins S. The new alchemy: Online networking, data sharing and research activity distribution tools for scientists [version 1; referees: 1 aproved]. F1000Research. 2017; 6:1315.

Mikki S, Zygmuntowska M, Gjesdal ØL, Al Ruwehy HA. Digital presence of norwegian scholars on academic network sites- where and who are they? PLoS One. 2015;10:e0142709.

Erdt M, Aung HH, Aw AS, Rapple C, Theng YL. Analysing researchers’ outreach efforts and the association with publication metrics: A case study of Kudos. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0183217.

Gruzd A, Staves K, Wilk A. Tenure and promotion in the age of online social media. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2011;48(1):1-9.

Rowlands I, Nicholas D, Russell B, Canty N, Watkinson A. Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing. 2011;24(3):183-95.

Citrome L. My two favourite professional social networking sites: LinkedIn and ResearchGate - how they can help you, or hurt you. Int J Clin Pract. 2015;69:623-4.

Thelwall M, Kousha K. ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: which finds more early citations? Scientometrics. 2017;112:1125- 31.

Batooli Z, Ravandi SN, Bidgoli MS. Evaluation of scientific outputs of Kashan University of Medical Sciences in Scopus Citation Database based on Scopus, ResearchGate, and Mendeley Scientometric Measures. Electron Physician. 2016;8:2048-56.

Memon AR. ResearchGate is no longer reliable: leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community. J Pak Med Assoc. 2016;66:1643-7.

Jamali HR. Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate fulltext journal articles. Scientometrics. 2017;112:241-54.

Madhusudhan M. Use of social networking sites by research scholars of the University of Delhi: a study. Int Inf Libr Rev. 2012;44:100-13.

Niyazov Y, Vogel C, Price R, Lund B, Judd D, Akil A, et al. Open access meets discoverability: citations to articles posted to Academia.edu. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0148257.

Ovadia S. ResearchGate and Academia.edu: academic social networks. Behav Soc Sci Librar. 2014;33:165-9.

Megwalu A. Academic social networking: a case study on users’ information behavior. Adv Librariansh. 2015;39:185-214.

Thelwall M, Kousha K. Academia.edu: social network or academic network?. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2014;65(4):721-31.

Davis P. Gaming Google Scholar citations, made simple and easy [webpage]. The scholarly kitchen; 12/12/2012 [05/04/2019; 11/04/2019]. Available at: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/12/12/gaming-google- scholar-citationsmade-simple-and-easy/

Ortega JL. Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Inf Rev. 2015;39:520-36.

López-Cózar ED, Robinson-García N, Torres-Salinas D. The Google Scholar experiment: how to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2014;65:446-54.

Beall J. Google Scholar is filled with junk science [webpage]. Seattle, Washington: Emerald City Journal; 04/11/2014 [11/12/2018; 01/04/2019]. Available at: https://www.emeraldcityjournal.com/2014/11/google-scholar-is- filled-with-junkscience/

Mingers J, Meyer M. Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation. Scientometrics. 2017;112:1111-21.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7399%2Ffh.11304