Are Latin American ecologists recognized at the world level? A global comparison

Abstract Background: Ioannidis et al. (2020) reported a standardized estimate of scientific productivity obtained from a worldwide database of 6,880,389 scientists who published at least 5 papers picked up by the Scopus database, and elaborated a ranking of ca. 120,000 scientists by both whole traj...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Rau,Jaime R., Jaksic,Fabian M.
Lenguaje:	English
Publicado:	Sociedad de Biología de Chile 2021
Materias:	Productivity Scientometrics Ioannidis index Allocites Self-citation Brazil Mexico Argentina Chile
Acceso en línea:	http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-078X2021000100601
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:scielo:S0716-078X2021000100601
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:scielo:S0716-078X20210001006012021-09-01Are Latin American ecologists recognized at the world level? A global comparisonRau,Jaime R.Jaksic,Fabian M. Productivity Scientometrics Ioannidis index Allocites Self-citation Brazil Mexico Argentina Chile Abstract Background: Ioannidis et al. (2020) reported a standardized estimate of scientific productivity obtained from a worldwide database of 6,880,389 scientists who published at least 5 papers picked up by the Scopus database, and elaborated a ranking of ca. 120,000 scientists by both whole trajectory (career-long) impact and their current impact at year 2019. The goal of our paper is to contextualize Latin American ecologists’ contribution at the world level based on the four most scientifically productive countries in the region. Methods and findings: Ioannidis et al. (2020) proposed a composite index that is the sum of six scientometric indicators: (1) The number of allocites, (2) the h index, (3) a per capita corrected version of h, (4) the allocites received as single author, (5) those received as single + first author, and (6) those as single + first + last author. We selected data for ecologists from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico and comparatively analyzed their productivity according to the proposed index. We also compared these data with those obtained from a global sample of the top ecologists worldwide. Conclusions: Based on Ioannidis et al.’s proposition to evaluate scientific productivity we extract three lessons: (1) It does not pay to publish many papers; what counts is the number of allocites (i.e., self-citations do not add up). (2) Either be single, first, or last author; it does not pay to be in the middle of an authorship line. (3) Even worse it is to be among many co-authors because the proposed index allocates credits on a per capita basis.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSociedad de Biología de ChileRevista chilena de historia natural v.94 20212021-01-01text/htmlhttp://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-078X2021000100601en10.1186/s40693-021-00101-7
institution	Scielo Chile
collection	Scielo Chile
language	English
topic	Productivity Scientometrics Ioannidis index Allocites Self-citation Brazil Mexico Argentina Chile
spellingShingle	Productivity Scientometrics Ioannidis index Allocites Self-citation Brazil Mexico Argentina Chile Rau,Jaime R. Jaksic,Fabian M. Are Latin American ecologists recognized at the world level? A global comparison
description	Abstract Background: Ioannidis et al. (2020) reported a standardized estimate of scientific productivity obtained from a worldwide database of 6,880,389 scientists who published at least 5 papers picked up by the Scopus database, and elaborated a ranking of ca. 120,000 scientists by both whole trajectory (career-long) impact and their current impact at year 2019. The goal of our paper is to contextualize Latin American ecologists’ contribution at the world level based on the four most scientifically productive countries in the region. Methods and findings: Ioannidis et al. (2020) proposed a composite index that is the sum of six scientometric indicators: (1) The number of allocites, (2) the h index, (3) a per capita corrected version of h, (4) the allocites received as single author, (5) those received as single + first author, and (6) those as single + first + last author. We selected data for ecologists from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico and comparatively analyzed their productivity according to the proposed index. We also compared these data with those obtained from a global sample of the top ecologists worldwide. Conclusions: Based on Ioannidis et al.’s proposition to evaluate scientific productivity we extract three lessons: (1) It does not pay to publish many papers; what counts is the number of allocites (i.e., self-citations do not add up). (2) Either be single, first, or last author; it does not pay to be in the middle of an authorship line. (3) Even worse it is to be among many co-authors because the proposed index allocates credits on a per capita basis.
author	Rau,Jaime R. Jaksic,Fabian M.
author_facet	Rau,Jaime R. Jaksic,Fabian M.
author_sort	Rau,Jaime R.
title	Are Latin American ecologists recognized at the world level? A global comparison
title_short	Are Latin American ecologists recognized at the world level? A global comparison
title_full	Are Latin American ecologists recognized at the world level? A global comparison
title_fullStr	Are Latin American ecologists recognized at the world level? A global comparison
title_full_unstemmed	Are Latin American ecologists recognized at the world level? A global comparison
title_sort	are latin american ecologists recognized at the world level? a global comparison
publisher	Sociedad de Biología de Chile
publishDate	2021
url	http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-078X2021000100601
work_keys_str_mv	AT raujaimer arelatinamericanecologistsrecognizedattheworldlevelaglobalcomparison AT jaksicfabianm arelatinamericanecologistsrecognizedattheworldlevelaglobalcomparison
_version_	1718439713602273280

Are Latin American ecologists recognized at the world level? A global comparison

Ejemplares similares