arXiv subjects

Nicolas Robinson-Garcia

Publications and source records attributed to Nicolas Robinson-Garcia.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2024

Are there stars in Bluesky? A comparative exploratory analysis of altmetric mentions between X and Bluesky

This study examines the shift in the scientific community from X (formerly Twitter) to Bluesky, its impact on scientific communication, and consequently on social metrics (altmetrics). Analyzing 10,174 publications from multidisciplinary and library and information science (LIS) journals in 2024, the results reveal a notable increase in Bluesky activity for multidisciplinary journals in November 2024, likely influenced by political and platform changes, with mentions doubling or quadrupling for journals like Nature and Science. In LIS, the adoption of Bluesky is more limited and shows significant variations across journals, suggesting discipline-specific adoption patterns. However, overall engagement on Bluesky remains significantly lower than on X. While X currently dominates altmetric mentions, the observed growth on Bluesky suggests a potential shift in the future, underscoring its emerging role in academic dissemination and the challenges of adapting scholarly communication metrics across evolving platforms.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

Decoding Knowledge Claims: The Evaluation of Scientific Publication Contributions through Semantic Analysis

The surge in scientific publications challenges the use of publication counts as a measure of scientific progress, requiring alternative metrics that emphasize the quality and novelty of scientific contributions rather than sheer quantity. This paper proposes the use of Relaxed Word Mover's Distance (RWMD), a semantic text similarity measure, to evaluate the novelty of scientific papers. We hypothesize that RWMD can more effectively gauge the growth of scientific knowledge. To test such an assumption, we apply RWMD to evaluate seminal papers, with Hirsch's H-Index paper as a primary case study. We compare RWMD results across three groups: 1) H-Index-related papers, 2) scientometric studies, and 3) unrelated papers, aiming to discern redundant literature and hype from genuine innovations. Findings suggest that emphasizing knowledge claims offers a deeper insight into scientific contributions, marking RWMD as a promising alternative method to traditional citation metrics, thus better tracking significant scientific breakthroughs.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

The Many Publics of Science: Using Altmetrics to Identify Common Communication Channels by Scientific field

Altmetrics have led to new quantitative studies of science through social media interactions. However, there are no models of science communication that respond to the multiplicity of non-academic channels. Using the 3653 authors with the highest volume of altmetrics mentions from the main channels (Twitter, News, Facebook, Wikipedia, Blog, Policy documents, and Peer reviews) to their publications (2016-2020), it has been analyzed where the audiences of each discipline are located. The results evidence the generalities and specificities of these new communication models and the differences between areas. These findings are useful for the development of science communication policies and strategies.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2021

Analysing Scientific Mobility and Collaboration in the Middle East and North Africa

This study investigates the scientific mobility and international collaboration networks in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region between 2008 and 2017. By using affiliation metadata available in scientific publications, we analyse international scientific mobility flows and collaboration linkages. Three complementary approaches allow us to obtain a detailed characterization of scientific mobility. First, we uncover the main destinations and origins of mobile scholars for each country. Results reveal geographical, cultural and historical proximities. Cooperation programs also contribute to explain some of the observed flows. Second, we use the academic age. The average academic age of migrant scholars in MENA was about 12.4 years. The academic age group 6-to-10 years is the most common for both emigrant and immigrant scholars. Immigrants are relatively younger than emigrants, except for Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, and Turkey. Scholars who migrated to Gulf Cooperation Council countries, Jordan and Morocco were in average younger than emigrants by 1.5 year from the same countries. Third, we analyse gender differences. We observe a clear gender gap: Male scholars represent the largest group of migrants in MENA. We conclude discussing the policy relevance of the scientific mobility and collaboration aspects.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2021

Exploring the relevance of ORCID as a source of study of data sharing activities at the individual-level: a methodological discussion

ORCID is a scientific infrastructure created to solve the problem of author name ambiguity. Over the years ORCID has also become a useful source for studying academic activities reported by researchers. Our objective in this research was to use ORCID to analyze one of these research activities: the publication of datasets. We illustrate how the identification of datasets that shared in researchers' ORCID profiles enables the study of the characteristics of the researchers who have produced them. To explore the relevance of ORCID to study data sharing practices we obtained all ORCID profiles reporting at least one dataset in their "works" list, together with information related to the individual researchers producing the datasets. The retrieved data was organized and analyzed in a SQL database hosted at CWTS. Our results indicate that DataCite is by far the most important data source for providing information about datasets recorded in ORCID. There is also a substantial overlap between DataCite records with other repositories (Figshare, Dryad, and Zenodo). The analysis of the distribution of researchers producing datasets shows that the top six countries with more data producers, also have a relatively higher percentage of people who have produced datasets out of total researchers with datasets than researchers in the total ORCID. By disciplines, researchers that belong to the areas of Natural Sciences and Medicine and Life Sciences are those with the largest amount of reported datasets. Finally, we observed that researchers who have started their PhD around 2015 published their first dataset earlier that those researchers that started their PhD before. The work concludes with some reflections of the possibilities of ORCID as a relevant source for research on data sharing practices.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2021

The growth of COVID-19 scientific literature: A forecast analysis of different daily time series in specific settings

We present a forecasting analysis on the growth of scientific literature related to COVID-19 expected for 2021. Considering the paramount scientific and financial efforts made by the research community to find solutions to end the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented volume of scientific outputs is being produced. This questions the capacity of scientists, politicians and citizens to maintain infrastructure, digest content and take scientifically informed decisions. A crucial aspect is to make predictions to prepare for such a large corpus of scientific literature. Here we base our predictions on the ARIMA model and use two different data sources: the Dimensions and World Health Organization COVID-19 databases. These two sources have the particularity of including in the metadata information the date in which papers were indexed. We present global predictions, plus predictions in three specific settings: type of access (Open Access), NLM source (PubMed and PMC), and domain-specific repository (SSRN and MedRxiv). We conclude by discussing our findings.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2021

The role of scientific output in public debates in times of crisis: A case study of the reopening of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic

Situations in which no scientific consensus has been reached due to either insufficient, inconclusive or contradicting findings place strain on governments and public organizations which are forced to take action under circumstances of uncertainty. In this chapter, we focus on the case of COVID-19, its effects on children and the public debate around the reopening of schools. The aim is to better understand the relationship between policy interventions in the face of an uncertain and rapidly changing knowledge landscape and the subsequent use of scientific information in public debates related to the policy interventions. Our approach is to combine scientific information from journal articles and preprints with their appearance in the popular media, including social media. First, we provide a picture of the different scientific areas and approaches, by which the effects of COVID-19 on children are being studied. Second, we identify news media and social media attention around the COVID-19 scientific output related to children and schools. We focus on policies and media responses in three countries: Spain, South Africa and the Netherlands. These countries have followed very different policy actions with regard to the reopening of schools and represent very different policy approaches to the same problem. We analyse the activity in (social) media around the debate between COVID-19, children and school closures by focusing on the use of references to scientific information in the debate. Finally, we analyse the dominant topics that emerge in the news outlets and the online debates. We draw attention to illustrative cases of miscommunication related to scientific output and conclude the chapter by discussing how information from scientific publication, the media and policy actions shape the public discussion in the context of a global health pandemic.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2020

Open Access uptake by universities worldwide

The implementation of policies promoting the adoption of an Open Science culture must be accompanied by indicators that allow monitoring the penetration of such policies and their potential effects on research publishing and sharing practices. This study presents indicators of Open Access (OA) penetration at the institutional level for universities worldwide. By combining data from Web of Science, Unpaywall and the Leiden Ranking disambiguation of institutions, we track OA coverage of universities' output for 963 institutions. This paper presents the methodological challenges, conceptual discrepancies and limitations and discusses further steps needed to move forward the discussion on fostering Open Access and Open Science practices and policies.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

Indicators of Open Access for universities

This paper presents a first attempt to analyse Open Access integration at the institutional level. For this, we combine information from Unpaywall and the Leiden Ranking to offer basic OA indicators for universities. We calculate the overall number of Open Access publications for 930 universities worldwide. OA indicators are also disaggregated by green, gold and hybrid Open Access. We then explore differences between and within countries and offer a general ranking of universities based on the proportion of their output which is openly accessible.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

The differing meanings of indicators under different policy contexts. The case of internationalisation

In this chapter we build upon Moed's conceptual contributions on the importance of the policy context when using and interpreting scientometric indicators. We focus on the use of indicators in research evaluation regarding internationalisation policies. The globalization of higher education presents important challenges to institutions worldwide, which are confronted with tensions derived from the need to respond both, to their local necessities and demands while participating in global networks. In this context, indicators have served as measures for monitoring and enforcing internationalisation policies, in many cases interpreting them regardless of the policy context in which they are enforced. We will analyse three examples of indicators related to internationalisation. The first one is about international collaborations, under the assumption that a greater number of internationally co-authored publications will benefit a national science system as it will result in higher citation impact. The second one relates to the promotion of English language as the dominant language of science. The third case analyses how different policy contexts shape the selection and construction of indicators, sometimes in a partial way which does not properly reflect the phenomenon under study. The examples illustrate that the interpretation and policy implications of the 'same' S&T indicators differ depending on specific contexts.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

Making sense of global collaboration dynamics: Developing a methodological framework to study (dis)similarities between country disciplinary profiles and choice of collaboration partners

This paper presents a novel methodological framework by which the effects of globalization on international collaboration can be studied and understood. Using the cosine similarity of the disciplinary and partner profiles of countries by collaboration types it is possible to analyse the effects of globalization and the costs and benefits of an increasing global networked research system.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

Mining university rankings: Publication output and citation impact as their basis

World University rankings have become well-established tools that students, university managers and policy makers read and use. Each ranking claims to have a unique methodology capable of measuring the 'quality' of universities. The purpose of this paper is to analyze to which extent these different rankings measure the same phenomenon and what it is that they are measuring. For this, we selected a total of seven world-university rankings and performed a principal component analysis. After ensuring that despite their methodological differences, they all come together to a single component, we hypothesized that bibliometric indicators could explain what is being measured. Our analyses show that ranking scores from whichever of the seven league tables under study can be explained by the number of publications and citations received by the institution. We conclude by discussing policy implications and opportunities on how a nuanced and responsible use of rankings can help decision making at the institutional level

cs.DL↗

arXiv2019

Mapping social media attention in Microbiology: Identifying main topics and actors

This paper aims to map and identify topics of interest within the field of Microbiology and identify the main sources driving such attention. We combine data from Web of Science and Altmetric.com, a platform which retrieves mentions to scientific literature from social media and other non-academic communication outlets. We focus on the dissemination of microbial publications in Twitter, news media and policy briefs. A two-mode network of social accounts shows distinctive areas of activity. We identify a cluster of papers mentioned solely by regional news media. A central area of the network is formed by papers discussed by the three outlets. A large portion of the network is driven by Twitter activity. When analyzing top actors contributing to such network, we observe that more than half of the Twitter accounts are bots, mentioning 32% of the documents in our dataset. Within news media outlets, there is a predominance of popular science outlets. With regard to policy briefs, both international and national bodies are represented. Finally, our topic analysis shows that the thematic focus of papers mentioned varies by outlet. While news media cover the wider range of topics, policy briefs are focused on translational medicine, and bacterial outbreaks.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2018

The many faces of mobility: Using bibliometric data to measure the movement of scientists

This paper presents a methodological framework for developing scientific mobility indicators based on bibliometric data. We identify nearly 16 million individual authors from publications covered in the Web of Science for the 2008-2015 period. Based on the information provided across individuals' publication records, we propose a general classification for analyzing scientific mobility using institutional affiliation changes. We distinguish between migrants--authors who have ruptures with their country of origin--and travelers--authors who gain additional affiliations while maintaining affiliation with their country of origin. We find that 3.7 percent of researchers who have published at least one paper over the period are mobile. Travelers represent 72.7 percent of all mobile scholars, but migrants have higher scientific impact. We apply this classification at the country level, expanding the classification to incorporate the directionality of scientists' mobility (i.e., incoming and outgoing). We provide a brief analysis to highlight the utility of the proposed taxonomy to study scholarly mobility and discuss the implications for science policy.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2018

The insoluble problems of books: What does Altmetric.com have to offer?

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. We perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions platform offers for books. We use two distinct datasets of books: the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com and the Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, we compare our findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, we find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. Our comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2018

Reviewing, indicating, and counting books for modern research evaluation systems

In this chapter, we focus on the specialists who have helped to improve the conditions for book assessments in research evaluation exercises, with empirically based data and insights supporting their greater integration. Our review highlights the research carried out by four types of expert communities, referred to as the monitors, the subject classifiers, the indexers and the indicator constructionists. Many challenges lie ahead for scholars affiliated with these communities, particularly the latter three. By acknowledging their unique, yet interrelated roles, we show where the greatest potential is for both quantitative and qualitative indicator advancements in book-inclusive evaluation systems.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2018

Disentangling Gold Open Access

This chapter focuses on the analysis of current publication trends in gold Open Access (OA). The purpose of the chapter is to develop a full understanding on country patterns, OA journals characteristics and citation differences between gold OA and non-gold OA publications. For this, we will first review current literature regarding Open Access and its relation with its so-called citation advantage. Starting with a chronological perspective we will describe its development, how different countries are promoting OA publishing, and its effects on the journal publishing industry. We will deepen the analysis by investigating the research output produced by different units of analysis. First, we will focus on the production of countries with a special emphasis on citation and disciplinary differences. A point of interest will be identification of national idiosyncrasies and the relation between OA publication and research of local interest. This will lead to our second unit of analysis, OA journals indexed in Web of Science. Here we will deepen on journals characteristics and publisher types to clearly identify factors which may affect citation differences between OA and traditional journals which may not necessarily be derived from the OA factor. Gold OA publishing is being encouraged in many countries as opposed to Green OA. This chapter aims at fully understanding how it affects researchers' publication patterns and whether it ensures an alleged citation advantage as opposed to non-gold OA publications.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2018

Scientific mobility indicators in practice: International mobility profiles at the country level

This paper presents and describes the methodological opportunities offered by bibliometric data to produce indicators of scientific mobility. Large bibliographic datasets of disambiguated authors and their affiliations allow for the possibility of tracking the affiliation changes of scientists. Using the Web of Science as data source, we analyze the distribution of types of mobile scientists for a selection of countries. We explore the possibility of creating profiles of international mobility at the country level, and discuss potential interpretations and caveats. Five countries (Canada, The Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, and the United States) are used as examples. These profiles enable us to characterize these countries in terms of their strongest links with other countries. This type of analysis reveals circulation among and between countries with strong policy implications.

cs.DL↗