History and Philosophy of Science in Latin America
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt20219Keywords:
History and Philosophy of Science, Latin American, Bibliometrics, SCImago Journal Rank, ScopusAbstract
Introduction: the countries of Latin America have a common history in which they share languages, roots and traditions, and this is a major milestone in their unique way of progress.
Objective: to characterise the communication patterns and impact of Latin American scientific output in the category “History and Philosophy of Science”.
Methods: a bibliometric study was conducted where the documents belonging to the category "History and Philosophy of Science" from the period between 1996 and 2016 were analysed, using as tools Scival and Scimago Country and Journal Rank.
Results: while the regional scientific output showed an annual growth, especially after 2009, this growth was less noticeable at a global level, which indicates the scientific community’s interest towards this type of studies. More than half of the documents were cited, with a citation average of 28 cites per document. More than 30 % of the communications involved international collaboration. Different studies have proven that the works which involved collaboration had a greater impact, at the expense of their visibility.
Conclusions: the analysis of the Latin-American field of History and Philosophy of Science is characterised by a sustained growth, with Brazil as its greater producer. The region has high indicators for scientific leadership and citation. They show their potential based on the recovery of the historical memory of Latin-American people in a new context related to the recognition of scientific heritage as an essential part of our people’s culture, economy, politics and society
References
1. Cetto AM. Ciencia y producción científica en América Latina. El proyecto Latíndex. International Microbiology. 2010;1:181-2.
2. Elsevier. Scopus. What does it cover? [Internet]. 2017 [citado 5 de enero de 2018]. Disponible en: http://info.scopus.com/scopus-in-detail/facts/
3. Moya-Anegón F, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Vargas-Quesada B, Corera-Álvarez E, Gonzalez-Molina A, Munoz-Fernandez FJ. Coverage analysis of Scopus: a journal metric approach. Scientometrics. 2007;73:53-78.
4. Elsevier. SciVal - Welcome to SciVal [Internet]. 2017 [citado 3 de enero de 2018]. Disponible en: https://scival.com/
5. Scimago Lab. Scimago Journal & Country Rank [Internet]. 2017 [citado 3 de enero de 2018]. Disponible en: http://www.scimagojr.com/
6. Zacca-González G, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Vargas-Quesada B, de Moya-Anegón F. Bibliometric analysis of regional Latin America’s scientific output in Public Health through SCImago Journal & Country Rank. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:632.
7. Scimago Journal and Country Rank. Help [Internet]. 2018 [citado 22 de enero de 2018]. Disponible en: http://www.scimagojr.com/help.php#understand_journals
8. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS. 2005;102:16569-72.
9. SCImago Institutions Rankings. SIR Methodology [Internet]. 2018 [citado 22 de enero de 2018]. Disponible en: http://www.scimagoir.com/methodology.php
10. Guerrero Bote VP, Olmeda-Gómez C, de Moya-Anegón F. Quantifying the benefits of international scientific collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2013;64:392-404.
11. Moya-Anegón F, Guerrero-Bote VP, Bornmann L, Moed HF. The research guarantors of scientific papers and the output counting: a promising new approach. Scientometrics. 2013;97:421-34.
12. De-Moya-Anegón F. Liderazgo y excelencia de la ciencia española. El Profesional de la Informacion. 2012;21:125-8.
13. Escalante Collazo GE, Gonzalez-Argote J, Garcia-Rivero AA. Producción científica sobre enfermedades infecciosas desatendidas en Latinoamérica. Revista Electrónica Dr Zoilo E Marinello Vidaurreta [Internet]. 2017 [citado 8 de enero de 2018];42. Disponible en: http://revzoilomarinello.sld.cu/index.php/zmv/article/view/1160
14. Sábato J, Botana N. La ciencia y la tecnología en el desarrollo futuro de América Latina. Arbor. 1993;146:21.
15. Kreimer P. Estudios sociales de la ciencia y la tecnología en América Latina: ¿para qué?, ¿para quién? Redes. 2007;13:55-64.
16. Vaccarezza LS. Ciencia, tecnología y sociedad: el estado de la cuestión en América Latina. Revista Iberoamericana de educación. 1998;18:13-40.
17. Glänzel W, Leta J, Thijs B. Science in Brazil. Part 1: A macro-level comparative study. Scientometrics. 2006;67:67-86.
18. Moya-Anegón FD, Herrero-Solana V. Science in america latina: A comparison of bibliometric and scientific-technical indicators. Scientometrics. 1999;46:299-320.
19. Nomaler O, Frenker K, Heimeriks G. Do more distant collaborations have more citation impact? Journal of Infometrics. 2013;7:966-71.
20. Zacca González G. Producción científica latinoamericana en Salud Pública. Cuba en el contexto regional. Scopus 2003-2011. [Internet] [Tesis Doctoral]. Universidad de Granada; 2015 [citado 10 de agosto de 2017]. Disponible en: http://hdl.handle.net/10481/40902
21. Bornmann L, Moya-Anegón F, Leydesdorff L. Do Scientific Advancements Lean on the Shoulders of Giants? A Bibliometric Investigation of the Ortega Hypothesis. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e12327.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Fernando González Alonso, Javier Gonzalez Argote (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
