Una década de investigación universitaria sobre Comunicación en España, 2007-2018

We analyzed the results obtained for the total count between 2007 and 2018 of (1) doctoral theses defended in the 55 universities with undergraduate and/or graduate studies in communication that offer doctoral degrees, (2) competitive projects in state calls in the social sciences and humanities areas where the object of study includes a socially significant dimension of “communication” practices, and (3) papers resulting from R&D projects published in reference journals in the area of communication. These documents are the most representative of the research activity of faculty, because they constitute the published results originating from research that is recognized and legitimized by academic life, without which such documents could not have been published. Thus, the articles collected here constitute a census of publications based on previous research, since all those articles whose object of study was not previous research were not selected, e.g., essays, or epistemological reviews of authors, schools, and/or theoretical or methodological trends. Papers presented at Asociación Española de Investigación de la Comunicación (AE-IC) congresses, which are also being studied as part of the MapCom project, could also have been included; however, they are only considered tangentially herein because only a minority of them are expressly linked to research results. This overview of the productivity of communication research in Spain over a decade analyzes documents grouped by universities, Autonomous Communities, author gender, and years. A total of 4,158 documents have been analyzed. The results reflect the influence of the scientific policies of the research quality assessment agencies. Resumen Se analizan los resultados obtenidos entre 2007 y 2018 del cómputo total de, 1) tesis doctorales defendidas en las 55 universidades con Facultades de grados y/o postgrados en comunicación; 2) y en éstas, los proyectos competitivos en convocatorias estatales en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades y cuyo objeto de estudio sea una dimensión socialmente relevante de las prácticas de “Comunicación”; y 3) artículos derivados de estos proyectos I+D publicados en las revistas de referencia en Comunicación. Estos documentos son los más representativos de la actividad investigadora de los profesores universitarios, y constituyen un censo de publicaciones basadas en investigaciones previas. Los artículos cuyo objeto de estudio no ha sido una investigación previa no han sido seleccionados (ensayos, revisiones epistemológicas de autores, escuelas y/o tendencias teóricas o metodológicas). Las comunicaciones presentadas en congresos de la Asociación Española de Investigación de la Comunicación (AE-IC) sólo son consideradas en esta exposición de forma tangencial, pues sólo una minoría de ellas es resultado de investigaciones originales. Con tales resultados se ha perfilado mediante un análisis comparativo de contenido, la productividad de la investigación en Comunicación en España durante una década, tomando en consideración los respectivos censos de documentos referidos según universidades, y que supone el análisis de Comunidades autónomas, género de sus autores y años. Se ha analizado un total de 4.158 documentos. Los resultados permiten contemplar, como conclusión más general, una evolución histórica marcada por la influencia de las políticas científicas derivadas de la imposición de las agencias de evaluación de la calidad investigadora.

Research Counts, Not the Journal

‘If there is one thing every bibliometrician agrees, is that you should never use the journal impact factor (JIF) to evaluate research performance for an article or an individual – that is a mortal sin’. Few sentences could define so precisely the uses and misuses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) better than Anthony van Raan’s. This manuscript presents a critical overview on the international use, by governments and institutions, of the JIF and/or journal indexing information for individual research quality assessment. Interviews given by Nobel Laureates speaking on this matter are partially illustrated in this work. Furthermore, the authors propose complementary and alternative versions of the journal impact factor, respectively named Complementary (CIF) and Timeless (TIF) Impact Factors, aiming to better assess the average quality of a journal – never of a paper or an author. The idea behind impact factors is not useless, it has just been misused.

Research Counts, Not the Journal

If there is one thing every bibliometrician agrees, is that you should never use the journal impact factor (JIF) to evaluate research performance for an article or an individual-that is a mortal sin'. Few sentences could define so precisely the uses and misuses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) better than Anthony van Raan's. This manuscript presents a critical overview on the international use, by governments and institutions, of the JIF and/or journal indexing information for individual research quality assessment. Interviews given by Nobel Laureates speaking on this matter are partially illustrated in this work. Furthermore, the authors propose complementary and alternative versions of the journal impact factor, respectively named Complementary (CIF) and Timeless (TIF) Impact Factors, aiming to better assess the average quality of a journal-never of a paper or an author. The idea behind impact factors is not useless, it has just been misused.

The effects of the research excellence framework research impact agenda on early- and mid-career researchers in library and information science

Early- and mid-career researchers will shape the future of library and information science (LIS) research and it is crucial they be well placed to engage with the research impact agenda. Their understanding of research impact may influence their capacity to be returned to research excellence framework (REF), the UK’s research quality assessment tool, as well as their ability to access research funding. This article reports the findings of a qualitative study exploring how the research impact agenda is influencing early- and mid-career researcher behaviour. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 early- and mid-career researchers. While enthusiastic about creating lasting impact, participants lack effective institutional support to maximise their own research impact. Participants demonstrate uncertainty about what REF impact is. The authors conclude that while there is evidence LIS academics engage with practice to maximise impact, they lack support in building impact and the discipline needs to do more to create opportunities for the academy and the profession to coalesce to identify objects for and deliver impactful research.