Ingenieria

www.ehu.es/revista-psicodidactica

ISSN 1136-1034

Scientific Journal Impact Indexes and Indicators for Measuring Researchers’ Performance
Índices de impacto de las revistas científicas e indicadores para medir el rendimiento de los investigadores
Gualberto Buela-Casal
University of Granada, Spain

Abstract: This paper describes the most relevant indicators for measuring the output,productivity and impact of researchers. The advantages and disadvantages of the most important indicators are analysed: impact of journals factor, impact of papers factor, weighted impact factor, accumulated impact factor, author impact factor, number of papers with impact factor, immediacy index, h index, internationality index, accumulated citation index, citations per paper index, citations peryear index, etc. The indicators are classified in accordance with journal, papers, productivity, output and impact, etc. Finally, the paper offers some thoughts regarding the use of the different indexes. Key words: Bibliometric indicators, scientific output, impact factor.

Resumen: En este artículo se describen los indicadores más relevantes para medir la producción, la productividad y elimpacto de los investigadores. Para ello, se describen y analizan las ventajas e inconvenientes de los indicadores más importantes: factor de impacto de las revistas, factor de impacto de los artículos, factor de impacto ponderado, factor de impacto acumulado, factor de impacto del autor, número de artículos con factor de impacto, índice de inmediatez, índice h, índice de internacionalidad, índice decitas acumuladas, índice de citas por artículo, índice de citas por año, etc. Los indicadores se clasifican en función de la revista, los artículos, la productividad, la producción, el impacto, etc. Por último, se reflexiona sobre la utilidad de los distintos índices. Palabras clave: indicadores bibliométricos, producción científica, factor de impacto.

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2010, 15(1),3-19

4

G. Buela-Casal

INTRODUCTION The assessment of scientific output and productivity is currently the object of much attention. Indeed, the number of specialist journals (including psychology ones) which publish papers on the assessment of researchers, programmes and institutions is increasing all the time. This is, to a certain extent, only logical, given that scientific policieshave increasingly begun to consider prior scientific productivity almost as a key factor in granting funding for future projects. Thus, for example, in Spain, in order for a doctorate programme to receive a Quality Mention by the Ministry for Education and Science, is it necessary for the lecturers to have a high level of scientific productivity (in fact, this factor accounts for almost 50% of thescore required to obtain the mention). In order to supervise a doctoral thesis or sit on an examining committee, one has to be a Doctor with an accredited research record. It is not enough just to have earned your PhD. In order to be a principal researcher in a publicly funded research project, it is vital to have a high level of scientific productivity. To sit on public university lecturerselection committees, one must have “Research Period Awards” (obtained in accordance with scientific productivity). In some Autonomous Regions, calls for research projects have recently been issued under the title “call for projects of excellence for groups of excellence”. At an international level, rankings comparing different countries and universities are becoming increasingly popular, and theserankings are based on scientific productivity. It is therefore only logical that the culture of productivity assessment is becoming increasingly consolidated in almost all areas of university life. Given the major impact of the scientific productivity assessment of researchers, it is hardly surprising that new productivity indicators have been created, or existing ones perfected, in recent years....