| dc.creator | Ryder, Elena | |
| dc.date | 2022-11-10 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-07-13T22:31:46Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-07-13T22:31:46Z | |
| dc.identifier | https://produccioncientificaluz.org/index.php/investigacion/article/view/39065 | |
| dc.identifier | 10.54817/IC.v63n4a00 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/7426964 | |
| dc.description | In this editorial, I want to focus on a dilemma: Is the citation of a paper much better than accessing and reading it? What is more important for science in real life? A citation may be relevant, but accessing a journal’s article could be crucial if it has some application. Our inclusion in Crossref has permitted us to determine the communicational impact of the published articles as a measure of their reading extension, revealing a monthly mean of 1050 readings this year. As we expected, most of the readings came from COVID-19 issues and review articles. Another metric of our publications is related to the number of visitorsto our journal web page: in 2021, we received 1300 visits. On the other hand, our presence in WoS and Scopus has shown a modest impact on citations, which is more evident in WoS. About different papers published on the subject, Hirsh 1 pointed out that the journal’s impact increases if the readers pay more attention to review articles instead of primary research articles. The H-index is another metric used to determine the journal’s impact based on the number of citations. According to Scopus, our journal has an H-index of 22. Jeang2 mentions, in his article about the H-Index and the differences between the frequency of citations and accessing, that a higher number of readings can produce an increased number of citations. But conversely, a high number of citations of one article does not imply a high number of readings. Finally, in the work of Shanta et al. 3 they concluded that the accurate measurement of the impact of a paper is the number of times a medical practitioner uses the information contained in that paper to improve the quality of the treatment. For our part, we will advocate striving to ensure that the works we publish have sufficient quality to be cited but also to be presented to arouse interest in its reading and their results put into practice. | en-US |
| dc.description | El propósito al escribir este Editorial fue enfocar un dilema que enfrentan las publicaciones científicas desde el punto de vista de los autores y de los editores: cuánto vale la citación de un trabajo y cuánto peso se le debe dar a su lectura. Comenzaremos por hacer un recuento de la actividad de Investigación Clínica en el año 2022. Tanto en el 2021, como en el presente año, se registró un aumento considerable en el número de trabajos recibidos para su posible publicación en “Investigación Clínica”. Esto se tradujo en una elevación de las contribuciones publicadas en este año 2022, sobre todo provenientes del extranjero, los cuales alcanzaron el 75% del total de los trabajos publicados. El continente más representado fue Asia, que aportó el 50% de dichos trabajos. | es-ES |
| dc.format | application/pdf | |
| dc.format | text/html | |
| dc.language | spa | |
| dc.publisher | Universidad del Zulia | es-ES |
| dc.relation | https://produccioncientificaluz.org/index.php/investigacion/article/view/39065/43779 | |
| dc.relation | https://produccioncientificaluz.org/index.php/investigacion/article/view/39065/43780 | |
| dc.source | Investigación Clínica; Vol. 63 Núm. 4 (2022): Investigación Clínica ; 323-325 | es-ES |
| dc.source | 2477-9393 | |
| dc.source | 0535-5133 | |
| dc.title | Leer versus citar un trabajo. Análisis de nuestras publicaciones en los últimos años.: Accessing vs citation of a scientific paper. Analyzing our publications in the last years | es-ES |
| dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | |
| dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | |
