| By: |
Diego Chavarro (SPRU (Science Policy Research Unit), University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9SL, UK);
Ismael Ràfols (SPRU (Science Policy Research Unit), University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9SL, UK; Ingenio (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València, València, 46022, Spain);
Puay Tang (SPRU (Science Policy Research Unit), University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9SL, UK) |
| Abstract: |
The assessment of research based on the journal in which it is published is a
widely adopted practice. Some research assessments use the Web of Science
(WoS) to identify “high quality” journals, which are assumed to publish
excellent research. The authority of WoS on journal quality stems from its
selection of journals based on editorial standards and scientific impact
criteria. These can be considered as universalistic criteria, meaning that
they can be applied to any journal regardless of its place of publication,
language, or discipline. In this article we examine the coverage by WoS of
journals produced in Latin America, Spain, and Portugal. We use a logistic
regression to examine the probability of a journal to be covered by WoS given
universalistic criteria (editorial standards and scientific impact of the
journal) and particularistic criteria (country, language, and discipline of
the journal). We find that it is not possible to predict the inclusion of
journals in WoS only through the univeralistic criteria because
particularistic variables such as country of the journal, its discipline and
language are also related to inclusion in WoS. We conclude that using WoS as a
universalistic tool for research assessment can disadvantage science published
in journals with adequate editorial standards and scientific merit. We discuss
the implications of these findings within the research evaluation literature,
specifically for countries and disciplines not extensively covered by WoS. |