Analisi delle tipologie di pubblicazioni psicologiche nelle riviste ad alto Impact Factor: Qualche spunto di riflessione sul sistema di valutazione della qualità delle pubblicazioni scientifiche
Parole chiave:
impact factor; valutazione della ricerca; pubblicazioni scientifiche in psicologia.Abstract
Il contributo, dopo una analisi approfondita e critica del sistema di valutazione bibliometrica delle pubblicazioni scientifiche, offre una panoramica delle tipologie di pubblicazioni scientifiche in psicologia, in riviste ad alto impact factor (>6,5), pubblicate nel periodo 2008 – 2013. Le 7487 pubblicazioni incluse nello studio sono state catalogate in base alla tipologia (case study, ricerche, review, articoli teorici). I risultati mostrano che le tipologie di articoli maggiormente accettate nelle riviste selezionate per il presente studio sono per lo più ricerche, poi articoli teorici, poi review e infine case study, questi ultimi quasi inesistenti. Se invece si considera la prospettiva del tipo di articolo pubblicato, gli articoli a più alto impact factor sono le review, seguono gli articoli teorici, le ricerche e infine i case study. I risultati sono discussi alla luce delle criticità rilevate nel sistema di valutazione bibliometrica delle pubblicazioni, e si offrono come spunti per ripensare il rapporto tra organizzazioni che si occupano di ricerca scientifica, e che necessitano di valutazione, e i loro contesti di riferimento.
Riferimenti bibliografici
Anfossi, A., Ciolfi, A., Costa, F., Parisi, G., & Benedetto, S. (2016). Large-scale assessment of research outputs through a weighted combination of bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 1-13. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1882-9
Anseel, F., Duyck, W., De Baene, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). Journal Impact Factors and Self-Citations: Implications for Psychology Journals. American Psychologist, 59(1), 49-51. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.49
Azer, S. A., Holen, A., Wilson, I., & Skokauskas, N. (2016). Impact factor of medical education journals and recently developed indices: Can any of them support academic promotion criteria?. Journal of postgraduate medicine, 62(1), 32-39. doi:10.4103/0022-3859.173202
Baccini, A., & De Nicolao, G. (2016). Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise. Scientometrics, 108(3), 1651-1671. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1929-y
Bertocchi, G., Gambardella, A., Jappelli, T., Nappi, C. A., & Peracchi, F. (2015). Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 44(2), 451-466. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.08.004
Blasi, B., Romagnosi, S., & Bonaccorsi, A. (2017). Playing the ranking game: media coverage of the evaluation of the quality of research in Italy. Higher Education, 73(5), 741-757. doi:10.1007/s10734-016-9991-1
Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One, 4(6), e6022.
Buela-Casal, G., & Zych, I. (2012). What do the scientists think about the impact factor? Scientometrics, 92(2), 281-292. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0676-y
Carbone, P. (2014). Impact factor and research quality. Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine (IEEE), 17(6), 34-35.
Christenson, J.A., & Sigelman, L. (1985). Accrediting knowledge: Journal stature and citation impact in social science. Social Science Quarterly, 66(4), 964-975.
Fernández-Ríos, L., & Rodríguez-Díaz, J. (2014). The “impact factor style of thinking”: A new theoretical framework. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 14, 154-160. doi:10.1016/S1697-2600(14)70049-3
Figà Talamanca, A. (2000, October). L’Impact Factor nella valutazione della ricerca e nello sviluppo dell’editoria scientifica [Impact factor in research evaluation and development of scientific publishing]. Paper presented at the Conference Proceedings of IV Seminario SINM, Lecce.
Fleck, C. (2013). The impact factor fetishism. European Journal of Sociology, 54(02), 327-356.
Garfield, E. (1996). Fortnightly review: How can impact factors be improved? BMJ: British Medical Journal, 313(7054), 411-413.
Garfield, E. (1998). The impact factor and its proper application. Der Unfallchirurg, 101(6), 413-414.
Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: A brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161(8), 979-980.
Garfield, E. (2003). The meaning of the impact factor. Revista internacional de psicología clínica y de la salud, 3(2), 363-369.
Garfield, E. (2005). The Agony and the Ecstasy: The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. Retrieved from http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jifchicago2005.pdf
Haslam, N., & Laham, S.M. (2010). Quality, quantity, and impact in academic publication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(2), 216-220.
Hegarty, P., & Walton, Z. (2012). The consequences of predicting scientific impact in psychology using journal impact factors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 72-78.
Knothe, G. (2006). Comparative citation analysis of duplicate or highly related publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(13), 1830-1839. doi:10.1002/asi.20409
Langher, V., Caputo, A., & Martino, G. (2017). What happened to the clinical approach to case study in psychological research? A clinical psychological analysis of scientific articles in high impact-factor journals. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 5(3), 1-16. doi:10.6092/2282-1619/2017.5.1670
Levorato, M.C., & Marchetto, E. (2003). Il giudizio degli psicologi italiani sulle riviste nazionali e internazionali [The judgement of Italian psychologists about national and international journals]. Giornale italiano di psicologia, 30(1), 15-36.
Liu, X.-L., Gai, S.-S., & Zhou, J. (2016). Journal Impact Factor: Do the Numerator and Denominator Need Correction? PLoS One, 11(3), e0151414. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151414
Lozano, G.A., Larivie`re, V., & Gingras, Y. (2012). The Weakening Relationship Between the Impact Factor and Papers' Citations in the Digital Age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(11), 2140-2145. doi:10.1002/asi.22731.
McGarty, C. (2000). The citation impact factor in social psychology: A bad statistic that encourages bad science? Current Research in Social Psychology, 5(1), 1-16.
McGrail, M.R., Rickard, C.M., & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: A systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(1), 19-35.
Pandita, R., & Singh, S. (2015). Impact of Self-Citations on Impact Factor: A Study Across Disciplines, Countries and Continents. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 3(2), 42-57.
Seglen, P.O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497
Sevinc, A. (2004). Manipulating impact factor: An unethical issue or an Editor's choice. Swiss Med Wkly, 134(27-28), 410.
Simon, H.A. (1991). Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134
Smith, A.T., & Eysenck, M. (2002). The correlation between RAE ratings and citation counts in psychology. Retrieved from https://web-archive.southampton.ac.uk/cogprints.org/2749/1/citations.pdf
Tahamtan, I., Safipour Afshar, A., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1195-1225.
Vanclay, J. (2009). Bias in the journal impact factor. Scientometrics, 78(1), 3-12.
Wardle, D. (2015). The journal impact factor contest leads to erosion of quality of peer review. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 7(1), 84-85. doi:10.4033/iee.2014.7.17.c