arXiv subjects

Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo

Publications and source records attributed to Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Life after delisting: tracking the publication output and citation impact of Scopus-discontinued journals with OpenAlex

Selective databases such as Scopus periodically re-evaluate the titles they index and remove those that no longer meet their quality criteria. Once a journal is removed, its subsequent output is no longer recorded, and the consequences of this process have therefore received little attention. This study analyzes the publication output and citation impact of 514 sources delisted from Scopus between 2018 and 2024, based on 678,162 documents retrieved from OpenAlex over a window of three years before and after delisting. Differences between periods are tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired samples, globally and by geographic region, field of knowledge and SJR quartile. Output grows until the year of delisting and falls sharply afterwards. The median annual output per journal drops from 35 to 22 documents (-37.1%; p < 0.001; r = 0.30), 61.7% of journals publish less, and 84 (16.3%) have no documents recorded in OpenAlex after delisting. Citations per document, measured over a three-year window, barely change when each journal is compared with itself (-2.4%; p = 0.079), and journals are almost evenly split between those whose impact falls and those whose impact holds steady or rises. The results indicate that delisting makes these journals less attractive as publication venues but does not penalize the citation of the work they publish to the same extent, which raises concerns from a research integrity perspective.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

How is Latin America engaging with responsible metrics? A systematic review comparing regional and global scientific production

Responsible metrics and responsible research assessment constitute an expanding field, driven primarily from the Global North through initiatives such as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), the Leiden Manifesto, and CoARA (Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment). However, despite growing international interest, Latin American scholarship on this subject remains largely unexamined. To address this gap, this paper presents a systematic review of the scientific literature on responsible metrics in the Latin American context. Drawing on 239 publications identified across five databases (Web of Science, Scopus, SciELO, Redalyc, and Dialnet) for the period 2012-2025, we compare the characteristics of Latin American output with publications from the rest of the world included in the same corpus. The results show that Latin American output has followed an irregular trajectory and lower volume than global production, with a peak between 2019 and 2022 followed by a sharp decline from 2023 onward, while output from the rest of the world has accelerated its growth during the same period. The Latin American literature is characterized by a predominance of theoretical and qualitative approaches, an orientation toward national and regional scales, and a strong alignment with the open science and open access agenda. In contrast, non-Latin American output displays greater methodological diversity and a growing number of applied studies documenting concrete reforms to research assessment systems. Overall, the findings point to the need to strengthen applied research on responsible metrics in Latin America and to better articulate local agendas with international debates on research assessment reform.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Assessing the performance of 8 AI chatbots in bibliographic reference retrieval: Grok and DeepSeek outperform ChatGPT, but none are fully accurate

This study analyzes the performance of eight generative artificial intelligence chatbots -- ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok, Le Chat, and Perplexity -- in their free versions, in the task of generating academic bibliographic references within the university context. A total of 400 references were evaluated across the five major areas of knowledge (Health, Engineering, Experimental Sciences, Social Sciences, and Humanities), based on a standardized prompt. Each reference was assessed according to five key components (authorship, year, title, source, and location), along with document type, publication age, and error count. The results show that only 26.5% of the references were fully correct, 33.8% partially correct, and 39.8% were either erroneous or entirely fabricated. Grok and DeepSeek stood out as the only chatbots that did not generate false references, while Copilot, Perplexity, and Claude exhibited the highest hallucination rates. Furthermore, the chatbots showed a greater tendency to generate book references over journal articles, although the latter had a significantly higher fabrication rate. A high degree of overlap was also detected among the sources provided by several models, particularly between DeepSeek, Grok, Gemini, and ChatGPT. These findings reveal structural limitations in current AI models, highlight the risks of uncritical use by students, and underscore the need to strengthen information and critical literacy regarding the use of AI tools in higher education.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2014

Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and types of publishers in the Book Citation Index

This paper presents a first approach to analyzing the factors that determine the citation characteristics of books. For this we use the Thomson Reuters' Book Citation Index, a novel multidisciplinary database launched in 2010 which offers bibliometric data of books. We analyze three possible factors which are considered to affect the citation impact of books: the presence of editors, the inclusion in series and the type of publisher. Also, we focus on highly cited books to see if these factors may affect them as well. We considered as highly cited books, those in the top 5% of the most highly cited ones of the database. We define these three aspects and we present the results for four major scientific areas in order to identify field-based differences (Science, Engineering & Technology, Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities). Finally we conclude observing that differences were noted for edited books and types of publishers. Although books included in series showed higher impact in two areas.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2013

Most borrowed is most cited? Library loan statistics as a proxy for monograph selection in citation indexes

This study aims to analyse whether library loans statistics can be used as a measure of monograph use and as a selection criteria for inclusion in citation indexes. For this, we conducted an exploratory study based on loan data (1000 most borrowed monographs) from two non-Anglo-Saxon European university libraries (Granada and Vienna) with strong social sciences and humanities components. Loans to scientists only were also analysed at the University of Vienna. Furthermore, citation counts for the 100 most borrowed scientific monographs (SM) and textbooks or manuals (MTB) were retrieved from Web of Science and Google Scholar. The results show considerable similarities in both libraries: the percentage of loans for books in national languages represents almost 96 per cent of the total share and SM accounts only for 10 to 13 per cent. When considering loans to scientists only, the percentage of English books increases to 30 per cent, the percentage of SM loans also increases (approx 80 per cent). Furthermore, we found no significant correlations between loans and citations. Since loan statistics are currently insufficient for measuring the use of monographs, their suggested use as an applicable selection criterion for book citation indexes is not yet feasible. Data improvement and aggregation at different levels is a challenge for modern libraries in order to enable the exploitation of this invaluable information source for scientometric purposes.

cs.DL↗