Figueredo-Gaspari E "Curricular evaluation of scientific publications " MEDICINA CLINICA 125 (17): 661-665 NOV 12 2005

Tue Nov 21 16:07:30 EST 2006

E-mail Addresses: eduardofigueredo at hotmail.com 

The author has kindly provided an extended summary in English:

Title: Curricular evaluation of scientific publications 

Author(s): Figueredo-Gaspari E 

Source: MEDICINA CLINICA 125 (17): 661-665 NOV 12 2005 

Document Type: Editorial Material 
Language: Spanish 
Cited References: 30      Times Cited: 2        

Addresses: Figueredo-Gaspari E (reprint author), P Del Palmeral,4,Edificio 
Capri,6, Almeria 04720, Spain
Hosp Torrecardenas, Serv Anestesiol & Reanimac, Almeria, Spain

E-mail Addresses: eduardofigueredo at hotmail.com 
Publisher: EDICIONES DOYMA S/L, TRAV DE GRACIA 17-21, 08021 BARCELONA, 
SPAIN 
Subject Category: MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL 
IDS Number: 995KH 

ISSN: 0025-7753 

ENGLISH SUMMARY:

Curricular evaluation of scientific publications

The aim of this survey was to ascertain the opinion investigators have with 
regard to the evaluation of scientific publications. Two members from the 
Editorial Boards of the 42 Spanish journals included in Medline were 
interviewed. Each one of the 84 investigators should fulfil specific 
requirements as author of scientific articles (minimum ten published 
articles). Usually one of those interviewed was the Editor of the journal.

Results were as follows:

a)	Which authors should obtain credit for their participation in the 
articles? 

-The first author only: 2,5% of those interviewed
-The two first authors: 5% of those interviewed 
-The three first authors: 21% of those interviewed
-The four first authors: 5% of those interviewed
-The five first authors: 4% of those interviewed
-The six first authors: 5% of those interviewed
-All the authors: 67% of those interviewed 

b)	How should the credit be distributed among the authors? 

-All the authors should receive the same credit for the article: 35% of 
respondents
-The credit should be distributed in decreasing form according to the order 
of authorship listed in the by-line: 65% of respondents 

     c) See Figure 1: “Evaluation of the journals included in MedLine (but 
not in Science Citation Index). As a reference value, 10 points for 
journals included in Science Citation Index.” Answers are shown in 
percentages of respondents. 

     d) See Figure 2: “Evaluation of the journals included in the Spanish 
Index Medicus (but not in MedLine neither SCI). As reference value, 10 
points is considered for journals included in Science Citation Index.” 
Answers are shown in percentages of respondents. 

     e) Should those articles cited by other authors/articles receive 
additional credit?

-Yes: 84.5% 
-No: 15.5% 

     f) See figure 3: “Number of cites that should receive the articles to 
obtain additional credit.” Answers are shown in percentages of respondents.

     g) See figure 4: “Evaluation of “Case reports”. As reference value, 10 
points is considered for original articles.” Answers are shown in 
percentages of respondents. 

     h) Evaluation of “review articles”. As a reference value, 10 points 
for original articles.

-More than 10 points: 9.5% of those interviewed
-10 points: 22.5% of those interviewed
-8-9.99 points: 12% of those interviewed
-6-7.99 points: 24% of those interviewed
-4-5.99 points: 20% of those interviewed
-2-3.99 points:  8% of those interviewed
-0-1.99 points: 3.5% of those interviewed 

     i) See figure 5: “Evaluation of “Letters to the Editor”. As reference 
value, 10 points is considered for original articles.” Answers are shown in 
percentages of respondents.   

     j) See figure 6: “More appropriate methods for the evaluation of the 
scientific publications.” Answers are shown in percentages of respondents.

a) Critical reading and direct evaluation by experts in the field
b) Critical reading + bibliometric indicators 
c) Exclusively bibliometric indicators

Discussion: This article discusses the need to design an integral model of 
evaluation of the scientific publications. It should be carried out with a 
combined set of fair, reliable and clear bibliometric indicators.

________________________________________________________

cited references:

B OFICIAL COMUNIDAD : 2004   

 B OFICIAL ESTADO 47 : 2004   

 OBSERVATOIRE SCI TEC : 1998   

 *COUNC SCI TECHN A
SCI TECHN EXC PUBL S : 2001   

 *NBEET
21 NBEET : 1993   

 BORDONS M
Evaluation of scientific activity through bibliometric indicators
REVISTA ESPANOLA DE CARDIOLOGIA 52 : 790 1999   

 BROAD WJ
SCIENCE 211 : 137 1981   

 BURMAN KD
HANGING FROM THE MASTHEAD - REFLECTIONS ON AUTHORSHIP
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 97 : 602 1982   

 BUTLER L
A list of published papers is no measure of value - The present system 
rewards quantity, not quality - but hasty changes could be as bad.
NATURE 419 : 877 2002   

 BUTLER L
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT   

 CAMI J
Evaluation of biomedical research
MEDICINA CLINICA 117 : 510 2001   

 CAMI J
Impactolatry: diagnosis and treatment
MEDICINA CLINICA 109 : 515 1997   

 CONN DA
IMPORTANCE OF COMPONENTS OF THE CURRICULUM VITAE IN DETERMINING APPOINTMENT 
TO SENIOR REGISTRAR POSTS
ANAESTHESIA 49 : 623 1994   

 FIGUEREDO E
REV ESP ANESTESIOL R 51 : 429 2004   

 FIGUEREDO E
REV ESP ANESTESIOL R 46 : 378 1999   

 GARFIELD E
CURR CONTENTS 30 : 52 1982   

 GLANZEL W
Journal impact measures in bibliometric research
SCIENTOMETRICS 53 : 171 2002 

 IRVINE J
EVALUATION SCI RES : 1989   

 LINDSEY D
PRODUCTION AND CITATION MEASURES IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE - THE PROBLEM 
OF MULTIPLE AUTHORSHIP
SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 10 : 145 1980   

 LONG JS
ON ADJUSTING PRODUCTIVITY MEASURES FOR MULTIPLE AUTHORSHIP
SCIENTOMETRICS 4 : 379 1982   

 MOED HF
THE APPLICATION OF BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS - IMPORTANT FIELD-DEPENDENT AND 
TIME-DEPENDENT FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED
SCIENTOMETRICS 8 : 177 1985   

 NARIN F
EVALUATIVE BIBLIOMET : 1976   

 OJASOO T
The impact factor of medical journals, a bibliometrical indicator to be 
handled with care
PRESSE MEDICALE 31 : 775 2002   

 PETROIANU A
REV ASSOC MED BRAS 49 : 173 2003  

 RENNIE D
When authorship fails - A proposal to make contributors accountable
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 278 : 579 1997   

 RINIA EJ
Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer 
review criteria - Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands
RESEARCH POLICY 27 : 95 1998   

 SEGLEN PO
FROM BAD TO WORSE - EVALUATION BY JOURNAL IMPACT
TRENDS IN BIOCHEMICAL SCIENCES 14 : 326 1989   

 TRENCHARD PM
HIERARCHICAL BIBLIOMETRY - A NEW OBJECTIVE-MEASURE OF INDIVIDUAL SCIENTIFIC 
PERFORMANCE TO REPLACE PUBLICATION COUNTS AND TO COMPLEMENT CITATION 
MEASURES
JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 18 : 69 1992   

 TRUEBA FJ
A robust formula to credit authors for their publications
SCIENTOMETRICS 60 : 181 2004   

 VANLEEUWEN T
HDB QUANTITATIVE SCI : 373 2004  