Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/131404
COMPARTIR / EXPORTAR:
logo share SHARE logo core CORE BASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE

Invitar a revisión por pares abierta
Título

Benchmarking scientific performance by decomposing leadership of Cuban and Latin American institutions in Public Health

AutorChinchilla-Rodríguez, Zaida CSIC ORCID ; Zacca-González, Grisel; Vargas-Quesada, Benjamín; Moya Anegón, Félix de CSIC ORCID
Palabras clavePublic health
Latin America
Cuba
Scientific collaboration
Normalized citation
Leadership
Fecha de publicación2016
EditorSpringer Nature
CitaciónScientometrics 106(3): 1239-1264 (2016)
ResumenComparative benchmarking with bibliometric indicators can be an aid in decision-making with regard to research management. This study aims to characterize scientific performance in a domain (Public Health) by the institutions of a country (Cuba), taking as reference world output and regional output (other Latin American centers) during the period 2003–2012. A new approach is used here to assess to what extent the leadership of a specific institution can change its citation impact. Cuba was found to have a high level of specialization and scientific leadership that does not match the low international visibility of Cuban institutions. This leading output appears mainly in non-collaborative papers, in national journals; publication in English is very scarce and the rate of international collaboration is very low. The Instituto de Medicina Tropical Pedro Kouri stands out, alone, as a national reference. Meanwhile, at the regional level, Latin American institutions deserving mention for their high autonomy in normalized citation would include Universidad de Buenos Aires (ARG), Universidade Federal de Pelotas (BRA), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientı´ficas y Te´cnicas (ARG), Instituto Oswaldo Cruz (BRA) and the Centro de Pesquisas Rene Rachou (BRA). We identify a crucial aspect that can give rise to misinterpretations of data: a high share of leadership cannot be considered positive for institutions when it is mainly associated with a high proportion of non-collaborative papers and a very low level of performance. Because leadership might be questionable in some cases, we propose future studies to ensure a better interpretation of findings.
DescripciónThis is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Scientometrics. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1831-z”.
Versión del editorhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-015-1831-z
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/131404
DOI10.1007/s11192-015-1831-z
ISSN0138-9130
E-ISSN1588-2861
Aparece en las colecciones: (CCHS-IPP) Artículos




Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato
Benchmarking_scientific_performance_decomposing_leadership.pdf507,41 kBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir
Mostrar el registro completo

CORE Recommender
sdgo:Goal

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

20
checked on 12-abr-2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

14
checked on 17-feb-2024

Page view(s)

561
checked on 19-abr-2024

Download(s)

283
checked on 19-abr-2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.