Respuesta a Delgado-López-Cózar et al. Factor de impacto: muchas declaraciones y pocos resultados. Letter
[EN] This umpteenth statement, although doubtlessly brilliant, arrives late and badly, since it not only insists on a strategy that has not worked but also avoids building the consensus that is necessary in the Spanish-speaking bibliometric com-munity, a community that may not be mustered in this wa...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2021 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) |
| Repositorio: | DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:digital.csic.es:10261/263589 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10261/263589 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Bibliometrics Scientific evaluation Research evaluation Research policy Indicators Journal impact factor JIF DORA Leiden Manifesto Bibliometría Evaluación científica Evaluación de la investigación Política científica Indicadores Factor de impacto Manifiesto de Leiden |
| Sumario: | [EN] This umpteenth statement, although doubtlessly brilliant, arrives late and badly, since it not only insists on a strategy that has not worked but also avoids building the consensus that is necessary in the Spanish-speaking bibliometric com-munity, a community that may not be mustered in this way to the extent that it remains far from a unanimous position. There will be conflicting interests, academic debate, and various publications, but action must finally occur via powerful lobbies, direct interviews with those responsible, and alternative, practical approaches. This letter, beyond its correct evaluations, does not propose real or viable scenarios, and not even short- or medium-term transitions, much less stra-tegies that would be sustainable over time. |
|---|