Quantifying research contributions in Haiti: Combining altmetrics and bibliometrics for life and Earth sciences
The academic world faces growing
pressure to quantify research output and impact. This pressure has led to the
development of various metrics, including bibliometrics (measuring publication
numbers and citations) and altmetrics (measuring online attention and
engagement). These metrics are used to evaluate researchers, universities, and
journals, often influencing funding allocation and career advancement. While
initially focused on individual researchers, the evaluation process has
expanded to include institutions and research networks. This has fueled
international collaboration and network density, while potentially neglecting
research conducted outside these networks. Beyond traditional bibliometrics
like the H-index and journal impact factor, new metrics like altmetrics are
gaining traction. These metrics capture the broader impact of research beyond
traditional citations, including online discussions and social media mentions.
This trend of evaluation is
particularly relevant in developing countries like Haiti, where research
evaluation is often informal and project-based. However, the implementation of
bibliometric and altmetric indicators can help Haitian researchers participate
in the global academic conversation and demonstrate the quality and impact of
their work.
Theoretical
Bibliometrics: Measuring the Pulse
of Research
Bibliometrics,
a field within scientometrics, focuses on quantitatively analyzing scientific
publications. It describes research landscapes, evaluates research performance,
and monitors scientific progress. Developed by Pritchard in 1969, it focuses on
counting and analyzing published research to gauge its scientific impact.
Traditionally, bibliometrics has served as a key tool for research evaluations
and performance measurement. By analyzing factors like the number of citations
and the H-index, it allows researchers and institutions to demonstrate their
productivity and impact.
However, in recent years,
expectations for bibliometrics have grown significantly. It is now seen as a
potentially powerful tool for evaluating research, with the potential to shape
funding decisions and career advancements.
Despite its growing importance, it's crucial
to remember that bibliometrics alone cannot provide a complete picture of
research quality and impact. Other factors, such as the originality of the
research, its contribution to specific fields, and its real-world applications,
also play a crucial role.
Traditionally, research impact has
been measured by the number of citations a publication receives. This metric,
championed by Konkiel, reflects how much a researcher's work influences their
field. However, relying solely on citations can be limiting.
Hirsch's H-index offers a more
nuanced approach by considering both the number of publications and their
citation counts. This provides a more holistic view of a researcher's output
and impact.
However, the rise of social media
and online platforms has led to the emergence of "altmetrics," a term
including alternative metrics for measuring research impact. Adriaanse and Rensleigh highlight the
increasing integration of social media tools in academia, where researchers use
platforms like blogs, Twitter, and Mendeley to share and discuss their work.
This online activity, captured by altmetrics, reflects the real-world reach and
impact of research beyond traditional scholarly circles.
ResearchGate, a social network for
researchers with 20 million members, aims to revolutionize research by providing
tools for collaboration and reputation building. It offers various metrics,
including the RG Score, Total Research Interest, and H-index, to assess
scientific impact and peer review.
The RG Score, based on user
interactions with a researcher's work on the platform, aims to measure
scientific reputation. However, its lack of transparency and reliance on
journal impact factors raise concerns about its validity. Some studies
criticize its limitations, including the inability to detect manipulation and
the questionable practice of using journal impact factors to assess individual
researchers.
Total Research Interest, a
different metric, gauges the interest other researchers have in a researcher's
work. It combines bibliometric and altmetric indicators, including reads,
full-text reads, recommendations, and citations, to provide a broader picture
of impact beyond traditional citations.
While ResearchGate offers valuable
tools for connecting and collaborating, the validity of its metrics remains a
subject of debate. Researchers should be aware of the limitations of these
metrics and use them with caution when evaluating their own or others' work.
Method used
Data from ResearchGate, Scopus, and Google Scholar for 47 researchers
with an RG score above 1 are analyzed. The environment sector had the highest
RG score, followed by "others," agronomy, and health. This reflects
the order of researchers per field, except for agronomy which had the fewest
researchers.
Considering the citations, agronomy had the highest total citations but
also the highest concentration, with one researcher contributing 97.4%.
Environment and health had more evenly distributed citations while the
environment sector had the highest H-index, followed by health and agronomy.
However, All sectors showed significant increases in both RG score and
bibliometric indicators throughout 2020.
Increase
in Citations and H-index
All
fields showed significant increases in citations and H-index between January
and December 2020.
Agronomy
had the highest increase in citations (21.93%), followed by environment
(27.78%), health (17.47%), and others (114.77%). The order of increase in
H-index was "others" > agronomy > environment > health,
ranging from 33.33% to 140%.
Distribution
of Productivity
Almost
64% of researchers have a publication score below 5, while only 10% have scores
above 10. This indicates a large gap in productivity among researchers.
Refined
Analysis with Stricter Criteria
To
minimize bias from self-citations, researchers with an RG-Score ≥10 and H-index
unaffected by self-citations were analyzed. Only 5 researchers met these
criteria (1 in agronomy, 1 in environment, 3 in health). This analysis suggests
potentially lower productivity in agronomy and environment compared to health.
Relationship
between RG-Score and Bibliometrics
The
Average RG-Score was 52.59, with agronomy having the lowest while considering citation
the number in Google Scholar was 3226, with health having 0.
While
all fields showed increased productivity in 2020, there's a significant gap
between researchers. A refined analysis suggests potentially lower productivity
in agronomy and environment compared to health.
XLSTAT
and R software,
The
Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was applied to various indicators like
citation counts and H-index from different platforms. The null hypothesis
(normal distribution) was not rejected for any of the indicators, suggesting
they follow a normal distribution.
Distribution
of Indicators:
Compared
to Google Scholar and Scopus, ResearchGate shows an increase in the total
number of citations (19.53% and 50.02%, respectively).
Correlation
Analysis:
Pearson's
correlation coefficient was used to analyze the relationships between RG Score
and bibliometric indicators (citations and H-index) from various
platforms.Strong correlations were observed between:
·
RG
Score and Scopus citations (r = 0.99, suggesting 99% overlap in cited works)
·
ResearchGate
citations and Google Scholar citations (r = 0.928)
·
RG
Score and Scopus H-index (r = 0.90)
·
RG
H-index and Scopus H-index (r = 0.997)
Conclusion
This study addresses the scientific productivity of Quisqueya University researchers in agronomy, environment, and health. All fields showed significant increases in the RG Score (altmetric) and bibliometric indicators (citations, H-index). Strong positive correlations were found between RG indicators and those from established platforms like Scopus, supporting the validity of RG Score as a productivity measure. However strong negative correlations were observed between RG indicators and Google Scholar indicators. This requires further investigation to understand the underlying factors causing this discrepancy.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2021.v17n21p316
Comments
Post a Comment