BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras

Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Digital Libraries

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2014arXiv

Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and types of publishers in the Book Citation Index

This paper presents a first approach to analyzing the factors that determine the citation characteristics of books. For this we use the Thomson Reuters' Book Citation Index, a novel multidisciplinary database launched in 2010 which offers bibliometric data of books. We analyze three possible factors which are considered to affect the citation impact of books: the presence of editors, the inclusion in series and the type of publisher. Also, we focus on highly cited books to see if these factors may affect them as well. We considered as highly cited books, those in the top 5% of the most highly cited ones of the database. We define these three aspects and we present the results for four major scientific areas in order to identify field-based differences (Science, Engineering & Technology, Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities). Finally we conclude observing that differences were noted for edited books and types of publishers. Although books included in series showed higher impact in two areas.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Most borrowed is most cited? Library loan statistics as a proxy for monograph selection in citation indexes

This study aims to analyse whether library loans statistics can be used as a measure of monograph use and as a selection criteria for inclusion in citation indexes. For this, we conducted an exploratory study based on loan data (1000 most borrowed monographs) from two non-Anglo-Saxon European university libraries (Granada and Vienna) with strong social sciences and humanities components. Loans to scientists only were also analysed at the University of Vienna. Furthermore, citation counts for the 100 most borrowed scientific monographs (SM) and textbooks or manuals (MTB) were retrieved from Web of Science and Google Scholar. The results show considerable similarities in both libraries: the percentage of loans for books in national languages represents almost 96 per cent of the total share and SM accounts only for 10 to 13 per cent. When considering loans to scientists only, the percentage of English books increases to 30 per cent, the percentage of SM loans also increases (approx 80 per cent). Furthermore, we found no significant correlations between loans and citations. Since loan statistics are currently insufficient for measuring the use of monographs, their suggested use as an applicable selection criterion for book citation indexes is not yet feasible. Data improvement and aggregation at different levels is a challenge for modern libraries in order to enable the exploitation of this invaluable information source for scientometric purposes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

On the use of Biplot analysis for multivariate bibliometric and scientific indicators

Bibliometric mapping and visualization techniques represent one of the main pillars in the field of scientometrics. Traditionally, the main methodologies employed for representing data are Multi-Dimensional Scaling, Principal Component Analysis or Correspondence Analysis. In this paper we aim at presenting a visualization methodology known as Biplot analysis for representing bibliometric and science and technology indicators. A Biplot is a graphical representation of multivariate data, where the elements of a data matrix are represented according to dots and vectors associated with the rows and columns of the matrix. In this paper we explore the possibilities of applying the Biplot analysis in the research policy area. More specifically we will first describe and introduce the reader to this methodology and secondly, we will analyze its strengths and weaknesses through three different study cases: countries, universities and scientific fields. For this, we use a Biplot analysis known as JK-Biplot. Finally we compare the Biplot representation with other multivariate analysis techniques. We conclude that Biplot analysis could be a useful technique in scientometrics when studying multivariate data and an easy-to-read tool for research decision makers.

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