BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Alvaro Cabezas-Clavijo

Alvaro Cabezas-Clavijo appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Digital Librariesphysics.soc-phSocial and Information Networks

Catalog footprint

What is connected

6works
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2016arXiv

Tracking the performance of an R&D programme in the Biomedical Sciences

This paper aims at offering an evaluation framework of an Research and Development programme in the Biomedical Sciences. It showcases the Spanish Biomedical Research Networking Centres initiative (CIBER) as an example of the effect of research policy management on performance. For this it focuses on three specific aspects: its role on the national research output in the biomedical sciences, its effect on promoting translational research through internal collaboration between research groups, and the perception of researchers on the programme as defined by their inclusion of their CIBER centres in the address field. Research output derived from this programme represents around 25 per cent of the country's publications in the biomedical fields. After analysing a seven year period, the programme has enhanced collaborations between its members, but they do not seem to be sufficiently strong. With regard to the credit given to the initiative, 54.5 per cent of the publications mentioned this programme in their address, however an increase on the share of papers mention it is observed two years after it was launched. We suggest that by finding the point in which the share of mentions stabilises may be a good strategy to identify the complete fulfilment of these types of Research and Development policies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Altmetrics: New Indicators for Scientific Communication in Web 2.0

In this paper we review the socalled altmetrics or alternative metrics. This concept raises from the development of new indicators based on Web 2.0, for the evaluation of the research and academic activity. The basic assumption is that variables such as mentions in blogs, number of twits or of researchers bookmarking a research paper for instance, may be legitimate indicators for measuring the use and impact of scientific publications. In this sense, these indicators are currently the focus of the bibliometric community and are being discussed and debated. We describe the main platforms and indicators and we analyze as a sample the Spanish research output in Communication Studies. Comparing traditional indicators such as citations with these new indicators. The results show that the most cited papers are also the ones with a highest impact according to the altmetrics. We conclude pointing out the main shortcomings these metrics present and the role they may play when measuring the research impact through 2.0 platforms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Google Scholar and the h-index in biomedicine: the popularization of bibliometric asessment

The aim of this paper is to review the features, benefits and limitations of the new scientific evaluation products derived from Google Scholar; Google Scholar Metrics and Google Scholar Citations, as well as the h-index which is the standard bibliometric indicator adopted by these services. It also outlines the potential of this new database as a source for studies in Biomedicine and compares the h-index obtained by the most relevant journals and researchers in the field of Intensive Care Medicine, by means of data extracted from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Results show that, although average h-index values in Google Scholar are almost 30% higher than those obtained in Web of Science and about 15% higher than those collected by Scopus, there are no substantive changes in the rankings generated from either data source. Despite some technical problems, it is concluded that Google Scholar is a valid tool for researchers in Health Sciences, both for purposes of information retrieval and computation of bibliometric indicators

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Google Scholar Metrics 2013: nothing new under the sun

Main characteristics of Google Scholar Metrics new version (july 2013) are presented. We outline the novelties and the weaknesses detected after a first analysis. As main conclusion, we remark the lack of new functionalities with respect to last editions, as the only modification is the update of the timeframe (2008-2012). Hence, problems pointed out in our last reviews still remain active. Finally, it seems Google Scholar Metrics will be updated in a yearly basis

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Ranking journals: Could Google Scholar Metrics be an alternative to Journal Citation Reports and Scimago Journal Rank?

The launch of Google Scholar Metrics as a tool for assessing scientific journals may be serious competition for Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports, and for Scopus powered Scimago Journal Rank. A review of these bibliometric journal evaluation products is performed. We compare their main characteristics from different approaches: coverage, indexing policies, search and visualization, bibliometric indicators, results analysis options, economic cost and differences in their ranking of journals. Despite its shortcomings, Google Scholar Metrics is a helpful tool for authors and editors in identifying core journals. As an increasingly useful tool for ranking scientific journals, it may also challenge established journals products

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Reviewers' ratings and bibliometric indicators: hand in hand when assessing over research proposals?

The peer review system has been traditionally challenged due to its many limitations especially for allocating funding. Bibliometric indicators may well present themselves as a complement. Objective: We analyze the relationship between peers' ratings and bibliometric indicators for Spanish researchers in the 2007 National R&D Plan for 23 research fields. We analyze peers' ratings for 2333 applications. We also gathered principal investigators' research output and impact and studied the differences between accepted and rejected applications. We used the Web of Science database and focused on the 2002-2006 period. First, we analyzed the distribution of granted and rejected proposals considering a given set of bibliometric indicators to test if there are significant differences. Then, we applied a multiple logistic regression analysis to determine if bibliometric indicators can explain by themselves the concession of grant proposals. 63.4% of the applications were funded. Bibliometric indicators for accepted proposals showed a better previous performance than for those rejected; however the correlation between peer review and bibliometric indicators is very heterogeneous among most areas. The logistic regression analysis showed that the main bibliometric indicators that explain the granting of research proposals in most cases are the output (number of published articles) and the number of papers published in journals that belong to the first quartile ranking of the Journal Citations Report. Bibliometric indicators predict the concession of grant proposals at least as well as peer ratings. Social Sciences and Education are the only areas where no relation was found, although this may be due to the limitations of the Web of Science's coverage. These findings encourage the use of bibliometric indicators as a complement to peer review in most of the analyzed areas.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access