Publishing Performance, Bibliodiversity and Bilingualism in a Complete Corpus of Scientific Publications

Authors

  • Fernanda Beigel Universidad Nacional de Cuyo
  • Osvaldo Gallardo Universidad Nacional de Cuyo

Keywords:

bibliodiversity, CONICET, scientific publications, knowledge circulation

Abstract

Discussions on open access publishing, scientific information systems, and institutional repositories are continually renewed in Latin America and other latitudes. Initiatives that seek to compile everything produced by scientific researchers, and not only indexed publications, also take a central role. To this end, this article analyzes the complete publication corpus of all the researchers of the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET, due to its acronym in Spanish) of Argentina. Publishing styles are examined (format, language, and place), in addition to differences between disciplines and specific gender asymmetries. The article also delves into the changes occurred in the last decade within the assessment cultures of CONICET and its recruitment policy. The results show that, while the paper format and the English language are dominant, they coexist with other forms of knowledge production and circulation. Publications in Argentina, written in Spanish and published in book format, are far from marginal in the population analyzed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Fernanda Beigel, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo

Investigadora principal de CONICET (INCIHUSA, CCT-Mendoza). Profesora de la Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Argentina.

Osvaldo Gallardo, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo

Becario posdoctotral de la Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica, Argentina. Profesor de la Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.

References

Albornoz, M., Barrera, R., Matas, L., Osorio, L. y Sokil, J. (2018). Las brechas de género en la producción científica Iberoamericana. Papeles del Observatorio, 9. Recuperado de: https://panorama.oei.org.ar/_dev2/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Papeles-del-Observatorio-N%C2%B0-09.pdf.

Beigel, F. (2014). Publishing from the periphery: Structural heterogeneity and segmented circuits. The evaluation of scientific publications for tenure in Argentina’s CONICET. Current Sociology, 62(5), 743–765. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114533977.

Beigel, F. (2017). Científicos Periféricos, entre Ariel y Calibán. Saberes Institucionales y Circuitos de Consagración en Argentina: Las Publicaciones de los Investigadores del CONICET. DADOS – Revista de Ciências Sociais, 60(3), 825-865. Recuperado de: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/001152582017136.

Beigel, F., Gallardo, O. y Bekerman, F. (2018). Institutional expansion and scientific development in the periphery. The structural heterogeneity of Argentina's academic field (1983-2015). Minerva. A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 56(3), 305-331. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9340-2.

Beigel, F., Almeida, A. M. y Piovani, J. (2020). Linguistic capital and styles of publishing in peripheral centers. Sociologica, en prensa.

Biagioli, M. y Lippman, A. (2020). Gaming the metrics: misconduct and manipulation in academic research. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Buquet, A., Cooper, J. A., Mingo, A. y Moreno, H. (2013). Intrusas en la Universidad. México: UNAM.

De Swaan, A. (2001). Words of the World. Gran Bretaña: Polity Press.

Debat, H. y Babini, D. (2019). Plan S in Latin America: A precautionary note (preprint). Recuperado de: https://zenodo.org/record/3332621.

Engels, T. C., Istenič Starčič, A., Kulczycki, E., Pölönen, J. y Siverstsen, G. (2018). Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(6), 592-607. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-05-2018-0127.

Gallardo, O. (2019). Una mirada relacional sobre el CONICET. Internacionalización, capital idiomático y cultura evaluativa en el campo científico-universitario argentino (2003-2015) (Tesis doctoral). Doctorado en Estudios Sociales de América Latina, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba.

Gallardo, O. (2020). Language capital at stake in the academic field. Profiles of acquisition, assessment and use of English by Argentine scientific researchers. Sociologica, en prensa.

Gerhards, J. (2014). Transnational linguistic capital: Explaining English proficiency in 27 European countries. International Sociology, 29(1), 56–74. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580913519461.

Giménez Toledo, E. (2016). Malestar. Los investigadores ante su evaluación. Madrid y Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana y Vervuert.

Giménez Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J. y Sivertsen, G. (2017). Scholarly book publishing: Its information sources for evaluation in the social sciences and humanities. Research Evaluation, 26(2), 91-101. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx007.

Giménez Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., Engels, T. C., Guns, R., Kulczycki, E., Ochsner, M. y Zuccala, A. A. (2019). Taking scholarly books into account, part II: A comparison of 19 European countries in evaluation and funding. Scientometrics, 118(1), 233-251. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2956-7.

Gingras, Y. (2016). Bibliometrics and research evaluation. Uses and abuses. Londres: MIT.

Guédon, J-C. (2011). El acceso abierto y la división entre ciencia principal y periférica. Crítica y Emancipación, 3(6), 135-180.

Jeppesen et al. (2019). Informe sobre demografía y avance en la carrera según gran área. CONICET. Mimeo.

Kehm, B. (2020). Global University Rankings: Impacts and Applications. En M. Biagioli y A. Lippman (Eds.), Gaming the metrics: misconduct and manipulation in academic research (93-100). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Lillis, T. y Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic Writing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English. Londres: Routledge.

Moschkovich, M. y Almeida, A. M. F. (2015). Desigualdades de Gênero na Carreira Acadêmica no Brasil. DADOS – Revista de Ciências Sociais, 58(3), 749-789. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1590/00115258201558.

Mounier, P. (2018). ‘Publication favela’ or bibliodiversity? Open access publishing viewed from a European perspective. Learned Publishing, 31, 299-305. Recuperado de: 10.1002/leap.1194.

Mugnaini, R., Damaceno, R. J. P., Digiampietri, L. A. y Mena-Chalco, J. P. (2019). Panorama da produção científi ca do Brasil além da indexação: uma análise exploratória da comunicação em periódicos. Transinformação, 31. Recuperado de: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889201931e190033.

Niembro, A. (2020). ¿Federalización de la ciencia y tecnología en Argentina? La carrera del investigador de CONICET (2010-2019). Ciencia, Docencia y Tecnología, 31(60). Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.33255/3160/627.

Paswan, J. y Singh, V. K. (2020). Gender and research publishing analyzed through the lenses of discipline, institution types, impact and international collaboration: a case study from India. Scientometrics, 123, 497-515. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03398-5.

Ràfols, I. (2019). S&T Indicators 'In the Wild': Contextualisation and Participation for Responsible Metrics. Research Evaluation, 28(1), 7-22. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy030.

Sarthou, N. (2019). Tendencias en la evaluación de la ciencia en Argentina: género, federalización y temas estratégicos. Ciencia, Docencia y Tecnología, 30(59), 37-73. Recuperado de: http://www.pcient.uner.edu.ar/cdyt/article/view/695/644.

Sivertsen, G. (2019). Understanding and Evaluating Research and Scholarly Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). Data and Information Management, 3(2), 61–71. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.2478/dim-2019-0008.

Sivertsen, G. y Larsen, B. (2012). Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: an empirical analysis of the potential. Scientometrics, 91, 567–575. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0615-3.

Tao Tao (2020). New Chinese Policy Could Reshape Global STM Publishing (artículo en periódico). The Scholarly Kitchen, 27 de febrero. Recuperado de https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/02/27/new-chinese-policy-could-reshape-global-stm-publishing/.

Thelwall, M. (2020). Mid‑career field switches reduce gender disparities in academic publishing, Scientometrics, 123, 1365-1383. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03445-1.

Perelló Tomás, F. (2012). Asimetrías de género en la Universitat de València. Informe definitivo. Valencia: Universitat de València. Recuperado de: https://www.uv.es/igualtat/actualitat/actualitat2013/informes/AGU_INFORME_DEFINITIVO_revisado_castellano_def.pdf.

Vincent-Lamarre, P., Sugimoto, C.R. y Larivière, V. (2020). The decline of women's research production during the coronavirus pandemic (artículo en periódico). Nature Index, 19 de mayo. Recuperado de: https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/decline-women-scientist-research-publishing-production-coronavirus-pandemic.

Zhang, L. y Sivertsen, G. (2020). The New Research Assessment Reform in China and Its Implementation. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 2(1), 3. Recuperado de: http://doi.org/10.29024/sar.15.

Downloads

Published

2021-03-22

How to Cite

Beigel, F., & Gallardo, O. (2021). Publishing Performance, Bibliodiversity and Bilingualism in a Complete Corpus of Scientific Publications. Revista Iberoamericana De Ciencia, Tecnología Y Sociedad - CTS (Ibero-American Science, Technology and Society Journal), 16(46). Retrieved from https://ojs.revistacts.net/index.php/CTS/article/view/211

Issue

Section

Articles