medigraphic.com

2021, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Enfermería Universitaria 2021; 18 (3)

Characterization of the scientific publications of nursing teachers of a private university: bibliometric analysis

Osorio-Castaño JH, Montoya-Zapata CP, Castañeda-Palacio HL

Language: Spanish
References: 25
Page: 344-354
PDF size: 274.71 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The number of citations that a published article receives is one form to visualize a discipline’s scientific production. These citations represent a form for universities to follow up on the articles published by their teaching staff within an institutional context.
Objective: To characterize the citations of the articles published by nursing teachers of a private university in the city of Medellin, Colombia.
Methods: This is a descriptive and exploratory study. Articles published by the nursing teachers were reviewed. The study variables included the characteristics of the published articles and the journals where the publications have been cited. Tracking of the citations was conducted on the Google Academic, Science Direct, and Scopus databases. The information was analyzed through univariate descriptive statistics.
Results: 52 articles were reviewed. From these, 29 have been cited at least once. A total of 188 citations were recorded. Of these, 31 % are concentrated in 3 articles. The most cited articles were those with topics related to addictions, with 21 % of the total citations. The most cited article had 28 citations. Of the total citations, 41.5 % come from gray literature.
Discussion: The findings related to the bibliographical citations have relevance from various perspectives. The social and academic perspectives allow a different dimension of knowledge to overcome the plain vision of citation counting.
Conclusions: The level of citations given to the publications of the studied nursing teachers is low. It is important to continue carrying out studies related to publication production tracking.


REFERENCES

  1. Kapil A, Jain NC. Impact factor: Is it the ultimate parameter for the quality of publication?. IndianJ Med Microbiol. 2016; 34(1): 1-2. https://doi.org/10.4103/0255-0857.174127

  2. Ampudia-de Haro F. O impacto de (não) ter impacto: Para uma sociologia crítica das publicaçõescientíficas. Rev. crít. ciênc. soc. 2017; (113): 83-106. https://doi.org/10.4000/rccs.6659

  3. Pacheco JA, Hurtado-Tarazona A. Estrategias para mejorar el impacto de las publicaciones indexadasen Publindex, ISI, Scopus y SciELO: el caso de la Universidad Santo Tomás, Colombia.Hallazgos. 2013; 10(19): 175-91. https://doi.org/10.15332/s1794-3841.2013.0019.11

  4. Zamora-Calvo MJ. Índices de impacto de las publicaciones científicas. Artifara. 2010; (10): 93-110.https://bit.ly/3JLQLxw

  5. Rodríguez-Morales AJ, Ochoa-Orozco SA, Mayta-Tristán P. Impacto de las revistas de salud colombianas:comparación de Publindex versus Google Scholar Metrics, SciELO y SCOPUS. Rev. cuba. inf.cienc. salud. 2014; 25(1): 24-35. https://bit.ly/3HbpzGM

  6. Fazel S, Wolf A. What is the impact of a research publication?. Evid Based Ment Health. 2017; 20(2):33-4. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2017-102668

  7. De Filippo D, Córdoba-González S, Sanz-Casado E. Bibliometría de la colaboración e impacto de laRevista de Biología Tropical (Web of Science 2003-2012). Rev. Biol. Trop. 2016; 64(1): 147-56.http://dx.doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v64i1.18241

  8. Duarte-Medrano GA, Téllez-Ávila FI. Publicaciones de la comunidad endoscópica mexicana, sunúmero, tipo e impacto en la literatura mundial. Endoscopia. 2016; 28(1): 9-15.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.endomx.2016.02.002

  9. Ávila-Meneses NR, Burgos-Ayala A, Céspedes NY. Calidad científica, temáticas e impacto nacionalde las publicaciones radiológicas en Colombia (2005-2013). Nova. 2015; 13(23): 109-17.https://doi.org/10.22490/24629448.1710

  10. Almero-Canet A, López-Ferrer M, Sales-Orts R. La colaboración interinstitucional en la produccióncientífica española en Enfermería: análisis de redes sociales. Enferm. clín. 2013; 23(3): 118-27.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfcli.2013.03.006

  11. Mesa-Melgarejo L, Galindo-Huertas S. Caracterización de las publicaciones periódicas de la enfermeríaen Colombia visibles en Internet. Av. enferm. 2011; 29(1): 159-68. https://bit.ly/3r47uFp

  12. Velosa-Castro LD, Osorio-Castaño JH. Producción científica en una Facultad de Enfermería de unauniversidad privada de Medellín. Medicina U.P.B. 2017; 36(1): 44-50.https://doi.org/10.18566/medupb.v36n1.a06

  13. Amezcua-Martínez M. De producir a descubrir: buscando el impacto social de las publicaciones.Texto Contexto Enferm. 2015; 24(2): 295-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0104-07072015EDITORIAL

  14. Newson R, Rychetnik L, King L, Milat A, Bauman A. Does citation matter? Research citation inpolicy documents as an indicator of research impact - an Australian obesity policy case-study.Health Res Policy Syst. 2018; 16: 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0326-9

  15. Oliveira-Crossetti MG, Gerhardt LM, Ferreira-Waldman B. La producción científica de la RevistaGaúcha de Enfermería y las prioridades de investigación en enfermería. Rev Gaúcha Enferm.2014; 35(3): 10-1. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-1447.2014.03.50165

  16. Oliveira DC. Prioridades de pesquisa em emfermagem e as linhas de pesquisa: dando continuidadeao debate. Rev enferm UERJ. 2014; 22(5): 712-6. https://doi.org/10.12957/reuerj.2014.12771

  17. Bassalobre-Garcia A, De Bortoli-Cassiani SH, Reveiz L. A systematic review of nursing researchpriorities on health system and services in the Americas. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2015; 37(3):162-71. https://bit.ly/35eCxXc

  18. De Bortoli-Cassiani SH, Bassalobre-Garcia A, Reveiz L. Acceso universal a la salud y cobertura universalde salud: la identificación de prioridades de investigación en la enfermería en América Latina.Rev. Latino-Am. Enfermagem. 2015; 23(6): 1195-208. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.1075.2667

  19. Hack TF, Bell A, Plohman J, Temple B. Research citation analysis of Canadian Nursing Academics:9-year follow-up. J Adv Nurs. 2019; 75(6): 1141–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13977

  20. Antunez MY, Marcia H. A comparative review of gerontological nursing citation data. Health InfoLibr J. 2016; 33(4): 257-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12162

  21. Thelwall M. Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readersfor articles from five countries. J Informetr. 2018; 12(4): 1031-41.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.005

  22. Haddaway NR, Collins AM, Coughlin D, Kirk S. The role of google scholar in evidence reviewsand its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS One. 2015; 10(9): e0138237.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138237

  23. Aguillo-Caño IF, Uribe-Tirado A, López-López W. Visibilidad de los investigadores colombianossegún sus indicadores en Google Scholar y ResearchGate. Diferencias y similitudes con la clasificaciónoficial del sistema nacional de ciencia - COLCIENCIAS*. Rev. interam. bibl. 2017; 40(3):221-30. https://bit.ly/3Kbibh7

  24. Harzing AW, Alakangas S. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal andcross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics. 2016; 106: 787-804.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9

  25. Martin-Martin A, Orduna-Malea E, Harzing AW, Delgado López-Cózar E. Can we use GoogleScholar to identify highly-cited documents?. J Informetr. 2017; 11(1): 152-63.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.11.008




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com