Protocolo como disciplina científicaun análisis bibliométrico

  1. Sáez González, Elvira 1
  2. Martínez Fierro, Salustiano J. 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Almería
    info

    Universidad de Almería

    Almería, España

    ROR https://ror.org/003d3xx08

  2. 2 Universidad de Cádiz
    info

    Universidad de Cádiz

    Cádiz, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04mxxkb11

Journal:
Revista Estudios Institucionales: Revista Internacional de Investigación en Instituciones, Ceremonial y Protocolo

ISSN: 2386-8694

Year of publication: 2020

Volume: 7

Issue: 12

Pages: 149-178

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5944/EEII.VOL.7.N.12.2020.26964 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

More publications in: Revista Estudios Institucionales: Revista Internacional de Investigación en Instituciones, Ceremonial y Protocolo

Abstract

This paper presents a bibliometric study of doctoral theses and articles of protocol and ceremonial extracted from several databases like the Web of Science of the Social Sciences Citation Index – Communication – Journal List (hereinafter, WoS) and Scopus at international level, as well as Teseo (for doctoral thesis), Dialnet and Google Scholar in Spanish language (from Spain and Latin America). The main research objective is answer two questions: Is the protocol a scientific discipline -as one would expect-? And if the answer is yes, what stage of its scientific development is it in?A content analysis has been used to identify the following analysis variables regarding the titles of the doctoral thesis and of the articles that are transferred to a database:Years in which the greatest number of doctoral theses and articles have been published.Journals in which articles are published to determine if there are specific protocol journals and otherwise, to which field of science belong the journals that publish protocol articles.Average number of authors per article.Titles of doctoral thesis and articles in order to identify the topics covered.Universities where more thesis was defended.The results of the analysis carried out reveal that the Protocol is a scientific discipline but in its early stages of development since there are currently no specific protocol journals in the analyzed databases. However, most of the papers appear in Communication journals, and a small number of papers appear in journals of other related disciplines such as History, Law or Politics.

Bibliographic References

  • ÁLVAREZ RODRÍGUEZ, M.L. (2008). “Artículos de Protocolo y Ceremonial en Revistas Académicas Iberoamericanas”, Razón y Palabra, nº 65 (julio).
  • BENIGER, J.R. (1990). Who are the most important theorists of communication? Communication Research, 17, p. 698- 715.
  • BORNMANN, L., MUTZ, R., NEUHAUS, C., & DANIEL, H.-D. (2008). Citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, p. 93–102.
  • BRODY, T., CARR, L., GINGRAS, Y., HAJJEM, CH., HARNAD, S., & SWAN, A. (2007). Incentivizing the open access research Web: Publication–archiving, data–archiving and scientometrics. CT Watch Quarterly, 3.
  • BUNZ, U. (2005). Publish or perish: A limited author analysis of ICA and NCA journals. Journal of Communication, 55, p. 703-720.
  • BURNHAM, J.C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review, Journal of the American Medical Association, 263 (9 March).
  • BUTLER, L. (2008). Using a balanced approach to bibliometrics: Quantitative performance measures in the Australian research quality framework. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, p. 83–92.
  • CAMPELL, PH. (2008). Escape from the impact factor. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, p. 5–7.
  • CASTILLO, A. y CARRETÓN, Mª C. (2010). Investigación en Comunicación. Estudio bibliométrico de las revistas de Comunicación en España. Comunicación y Sociedad, 13(2), p. 289-327.
  • CASTILLO, A. y XIFRA, J. (2006). Investigación bibliométrica de las tesis doctorales españolas sobre Relaciones Públicas, Anàlisi, 34, p. 141-161.
  • CLARKE, R. (2007). The cost profiles of alternative approaches to journal publishing. First Monday, 12(12), (December).
  • CODINA, L. (2005): Scopus: el mayor navegador científico de la Web. El Profesional de la Información. 14(1), p. 44-9.
  • COPE, B. y KALANTZIS, M. (1993). “Introduction: How a Genre Approach to Literacy can Transform the Way Writing is Taught”. En B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (eds.), The Powers of Literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 1-21). London: Falmer Press.
  • COPE, B. y KALANTZIS, M. (2010). Evaluating Webs of Knowledge: A Critical Examination of the ‘Impact Factor’. Logos: The Journal of the World Book Community, 21, p. 117-132.
  • COPE, B. KALANTZIS, M. y MAGEE, L. (2011). Towards a Semantic Web: Connecting Knowledge in Academic Research. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing.
  • COPE, B. y PHILLIPS, A. (eds.) (2013). The Future of the Academic Journal. Oxford, UK: Chandos, 2ª ed.
  • DE SOLLA PRICE, D.J. (1965). Networks of Scientific Papers. The pattern of bibliographic references indicates the nature of the scientific research front. Science, 149, 30 july, p. 510-515.
  • DEWATRIPONT, M., GINSBURGH, V., LEGROS, P., y WALCKIERS, A. (2006). Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.
  • EDLIN, A.S., y RUBINFELD, D.L. (2004). Exclusion or efficient pricing? The ‘big deal’ bundling of academic journals, Berkeley, CA: University of California.
  • EVANS, J.A. (2008). Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship, Science, 321(5887), 18 Julio), p. 395–399.
  • FERREIRA, J., FERNANDES, C. y RATTEN, V. (2016). A co-citation bibliometric analysis of strategic management research. Scientometrics, 109(1), p. 1-32.
  • FINK, J.L., y BOURNE, (2007). Ph.E. Reinventing scholarly communication for the electronic age, CTWatch Quarterly, 3.
  • GARCÍA-GUINEA, J. y SOTA RIUS, J., DE LA. (1998). Las consecuencias de publicar en revistas científicas escritas en español en España, Interciencia, 23(3), p. 185-187.
  • GINSPARG, P. (2007). Next–generation implications of open access. CT Watch Quarterly, 3.
  • GONZÁLEZ QUIRÓS, J.L. y MARTÍN, K.G. (2009). “Arguments for an open model of science”. En B. Cope & A. Phillips (eds). The future of the academic journal. Oxford, UK: Chandos, 2ª ed.
  • GUEDÓN, J.-C. (2001). In Oldenburg’s long shadow: Librarians, research scientists, publishers, and the control of scientific publishing. Association of Research Libraries.
  • HANNAY, T. (2007). Web 2.0 in science. CT Watch Quarterly, 3. Harnad, S. (2008). Validating research performance metrics against peer rankings. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, p. 103–107.
  • HARNAD, S. (2009). “The Post-Gutenberg open access journal”. En B. Cope & A. Phillips (eds.), The future of the academic journal. Oxford, UK: Chandos, 2ª ed.
  • HARZING, A.-W. K. y VAN DER WAL, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, p. 61–73.
  • JACSO P. (2008). Google Scholar and the scientist. Online Information Review.
  • JEFFERSON, T., WAGER, E. y DAVIDOFF, F. (2002). Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, p. 2786–2790. Jones, D.E. (1997). Investigació sobre comunicació social a l’Espanya de les autonomies. Anàlisi, 21, p. 101-120.
  • JUDSON, H.F. (1994). Structural transformations of the sciences and the end of peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, p. 92–94.
  • KOEHLER, W. (2001). Information science as ‘Little Science’: The implications of a bibliometric analysis of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science. Scientometrics, 51(1), p. 117-132.
  • KOUSHA, K., & THELWALL, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi–discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 5(7), p. 1055–1065.
  • KRIPPENDORFF, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2ª ed. Lauf, E. (2005). National diversity of major international journals in the field of communication. Journal of Communication, 55(1), p. 139-151.
  • LEE, K. y BERO, L. (2006). What authors, editors and reviewers should do to improve peer review. Nature.
  • LÓPEZ BAENA, A.J., VALCÁRCEL CASES, M. y BARBANCHO MEDINA, M. (2005). Propuesta de un sistema de evaluación de revistas científicas en las áreas de ciencias humanas y sociales. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 28(1), p. 222-248.
  • LÓPEZ PIÑERO, J.M. (1972). El análisis estadístico y sociométrico de la literatura científica. Valencia: Centro de Documentación e Informática Médica de la Facultad de Medicina.
  • MABE, M.A. y AMIN, M. (2002). Dr. Jekyll and Dr. Hyde: Author–reader asymmetries in scholarly publishing. Aslib Proceedings, 54, p. 149–157.
  • MARCA-FRANCÉS, G., MATILLA, K. y ORTIGA-FONTGIVELL, B. (2014). Las revistas académicas de comunicación en salud y de relaciones públicas: un análisis bibliométrico comparativo. En K. Matilla (Coord.), Cambio social y Relaciones Públicas (pp. 87-100). Barcelona: UOC.
  • MCCABE, M.J., NEVO, A. y RUBINFELD, D.L. (2006). The pricing of academic journals. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
  • MCNUTT, M. (2014). Be one of the first. Science, 19 September, 345(6203).
  • MEHO, L.I. (2007). The rise and rise of citation analysis. Physics World, 20, p. 32–36.
  • MORRIS, S. (2009). “The tiger in the corner: Perhaps journals will not be central to the lives of tomorrow’s scholars?”. En B. Cope & A. Phillips (eds). The future of the academic journal. Oxford, UK: Chandos, 2ª ed.
  • NORRIS, M. y OPPENHEIM, CH. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), p. 161–169.
  • RAMOS, F. (2013 a): “El Protocolo como ciencia propia en el ecosistema de la Comunicación. Espacios posibles para transformar una técnica en una disciplina científica”. Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico. Vol. 19, Núm. 2 (julio/diciembre), pp. 1075-1089. Madrid, Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Complutense.
  • RAMOS, F. (2013 b): “Método Científico e Interferencias Comerciales en la Construcción de la Ciencia del Protocolo. Una Reflexión Crítica para un Proceso Innovador y Creíble”. Revista de Comunicación Vivat Academia. Año XV, Núm. 125 (diciembre), pp.1-16.
  • SÁNCHEZ GONZÁLEZ, D.M. (2013). “Análisis comparativo de la normativa sobre protocolo de las universidades españolas”. Revista Internacional de Relaciones Públicas, Vol. III, Nº 5, 49-68. Recuperado el 18 de diciembre de 2019, de http://revistarelacionespublicas.uma.es/index.php/.
  • SÁNCHEZ GONZÁLEZ, D.M. (2015). “Notas sobre la evolución del protocolo y el ceremonial en España”, Revista de Estudios Institucionales, vol. 2, nº 2, pp. 55-63.
  • SÁNCHEZ GONZÁLEZ, D.M. (coord.) (2018). Protocolo e Investigación, Editorial UNED.
  • TARDY, C. (2004). The role of English in scientific communication: lingua franca or Tyrannosaurus rex? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(3), p. 247-269.
  • TENOPIR, C. y KING, D.W. (2009). “The growth of journals publishing”. En B. Cope & A. Phillips (eds). The future of the academic journal. Oxford, UK: Chandos, 2ª ed.
  • TODD, P.A. y LADLE, R.J. (2008). Hidden dangers of a ‘citation culture’. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, p. 13–16. Ugeux, W. (1973). Les relations publiques. Verviers, France: Gérard Marabout.
  • VAN DE SOMPEL, H. y LAGOZE, C. (2007). Interoperability for the discovery, use, and re–use of units of scholarly communication. CT Watch Quarterly, 3.
  • VAN LEEUWEN, T.N., MOED, H.F., TIJSSEN, R.J.W., VISSER, M.S. y VAN
  • RAAN, A.F.J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance, Scientometrics, 51(1), p. 335-346.
  • WILBANKS, J. (2007). Cyberinfrastructure for knowledge sharing. CT Watch Quarterly, 3.
  • WILLINSKY, J. (2006). The access principle: The case for open research and scholarship. Cambridge, MASS: MIT Press.
  • WIMMER, R.D. y DOMINICK, J.R. (1996). La investigación científica de los medios de comunicación: una introducción a sus métodos. Barcelona: Bosch Comunicación.
  • XIFRA, J. (2011). Manual de Relaciones Públicas e Institucionales. Madrid: Tecnos.
  • YUKIO, T. (1992). The Dominance of English and Linguistic Discrimination. Media Development, 15(1), p. 32-34.
Data source: Dialnet