Análisis bibliométrico de los artículos científicos sobre la investigación chilena en mamíferos marinos durante los primeros 21 años del siglo XXI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22370/rbmo.2024.59.2.4735Palabras clave:
Mamíferos acuáticos, bibliometría, investigadores chilenos, tópicos de investigación, ChileResumen
Se presenta un análisis bibliométrico basado en los artículos científicos producidos por investigadores chilenos en los primeros 21 años del siglo XXI para trazar el desarrollo de la ciencia sobre mamíferos marinos, identificar las especies y temas de investigación más estudiados, así como los investigadores e instituciones chilenas involucradas. La búsqueda de información utilizó la base de datos ScopusTM, Web of Science (WoS) y Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) para el período 2000-2021. Bibliometrix fue usado para obtener algunos índices de interés y VOSviewer para crear mapas de redes de co-ocurrencia. La distribución de las publicaciones mostró un crecimiento exponencial a una tasa anual del 10,8%, y 10 especies costeras (2 otáridos, 6 cetáceos y 1 mustélido) fueron los más estudiados. El análisis de palabras claves indicó que los estudios sobre distribución y alimentación fueron los tópicos más frecuentes, pero estudios de salud asociada a eventos de varamientos han surgido como áreas emergentes. También se da cuenta que pocos investigadores fueron responsables de una gran proporción de las contribuciones, siendo la Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía la editorial más frecuente de publicación. A nivel institucional, cuatro universidades, un centro de investigación regional y un servicio público serían los principales núcleos de producción de artículos de investigación sobre mamíferos marinos. Los conocimientos generados sugieren que el análisis bibliométrico es una herramienta útil para analizar tendencias en el avance científico de la mastozoología chilena.
Citas
Aguayo-Lobo A, D Torres & J Acevedo. 1998. Los mamíferos marinos de Chile: I. Cetacea. Serie Científica INACH 48: 19-159.
Anson G. 1748. A voyage round the world in the years MDCCXL, I, II, III, IV, 417 pp. John and Paul Knapton, London. <https://doi.org/10.34720/vtf8-ev15>
Aria M & C Cuccurullo. 2017. Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics 11: 959-975. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007>
Bedriñana-Romano L, PM Zarate, R Hucke-Gaete, FA Viddi, SJ Buchan, I Cari, L Clavijo, R Bello & AN Zerbini. 2022. Abundance and distribution patterns of cetaceans and their overlap with vessel traffic in the Humboldt Current ecosystem, Chile. Scientific Reports 12: 10639. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14465-7>
Bermeo-Andrade H, LE de los Reyes & T Bonavia-Martín. 2009. Dimensions of scientific collaboration and its contribution to the academic research groups’ scientific quality. Research Evaluation 18(4): 301-311. <https://doi.org/doi: 10.3152/095820209X451041>
Bird JE. 1997. Authorship patterns in marine mammal science 1985-1993. Scientometrics 39(1): 99-105. <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457432>
Bornmann L & R Mutz. 2015. Growth rates of modern science: a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66: 2215-2222. <https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329>
Boyack KW, R Klavans, AA Sørensen & JP Ioannidis. 2013. A list of highly influential biomedical researchers, 1996-2011. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 43: 1339-1365. <https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12171>
Buchan S, L Gutiérrez, N Balcazar-Cabrera & KM Stafford. 2019. Seasonal occurrence of fin whale song off Juan Fernandez, Chile. Endangered Species Research 39: 135-145. <https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00956>
Buchan SJ, N Balcazar-Cabrera & KM Stafford. 2020. Seasonal acoustic presence of blue, fin, and minke whales off the Juan Fernández Archipelago, Chile (2007-2016). Marine Biodiversity 50: 76. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-020-01087-3>
Carillo MR, E Papagni & A Sapio. 2013. Do collaborations enhance the high-quality output of scientific institutions? Evidence from the Italian research assessment exercise. Journal of Socio-Economics 47: 25-36. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2013.08.005>
Charles K. 2017. Marine science and blue growth: assessing the marine academic production of 123 cities and territories worldwide. Marine Policy 84: 119-129. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.07.016>
Courtial JP, M Callon & F Laville. 1991. Co-words analysis as a tool for describing the networks of interaction between basic and technological researches: the case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics 22: 155-205. <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280>
Dampier W. 1729. A new voyage round the world. I. Describing particularly. The isthmus of America, several coasts and islands in the West Indies, the Isles of Cape Verde, the Passage by Terra del Fuego, the South-Sea coasts of Chili, Peru, and Mexico; the Isle of Guam one of the Ladrones, Mindanao, and other Philippine and East-India islands near Cambodia, China, Formosa, Luconia, Celebes, &c. New-Holland, Sumatra, Nicobar Isles; the Cape of Good Hope, and Santa Hellena. Their soil, rivers, harbours, plants, fruits, animals, and inhabitants. Their customs, religion, government, trade, &c, 550 pp. James Knapton, London. <https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/135457>
Delecroix B & R Eppstein. 2004. Co-word analysis for the non-scientific information example of Reuter's business briefings. Data Science Journal 3: 1-90. <https://doi.org/10.2481/dsj.3.80>
Edelmann A, J Moody & R Light. 2017. Disparate foundations of scientists' policy positions on contentious biomedical research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(24): 6262-6267. <https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1613580114>
Egghe L. 2006. Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics 69: 131-152. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7>
Ellegaard O & JA Wallin. 2015. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics 105: 1809-1831. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z>
Elwen SH, KP Findlay, J Kiszka & CR Weir. 2011. Cetacean research in the southern African subregion: a review of previous studies and current knowledge. African Journal of Marine Science 33: 469-493. <https://doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2011.637614>
Félix F, JC Mangel, J Alfaro-Shigueto, LA Cocas, J Guerra, MJ Pérez-Álvarez & M Sepúlveda. 2021. Challenges and opportunities for the conservation of marine mammals in the Southeast Pacific with the entry into force of the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act. Regional Studies in Marine Science 48: 102036. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2021.102036>
Freire R & CJ Nicol. 2019. A bibliometric analysis of past and emergent trends in animal welfare science. Animal Welfare 28: 456-485. <https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.4.465>
Glänzel W & A Schubert. 2001. Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics 50(2): 199-214. <https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010561321723>
Glänzel W, A Schubert & HJ Czerwon. 1999. A bibliometric analysis of international scientific cooperation of the European Union (1985-1995). Scientometrics 45(2): 185-202. <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458432>
Gu Y. 2004. Global knowledge management research: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 61(2): 171-190. <https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000041647.01086.f4>
Harrison AL. 2006. Who’s who in Conservation Biology - an authorship analysis. Conservation Biology 20(3): 652-657. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00448.x>
Heinze T & S Kuhlmann. 2008. Across institutional boundaries? Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience. Research Policy 37(5): 888-899. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.009>
Hirsch JE. 2005. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 16569-16572. <https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102>
Jarić I, J Knežević-Jarić & J Gessner. 2015. Global effort allocation in marine mammal research indicates geographical, taxonomic, and extinction risk-related biases. Mammal Review 45: 54-62. <https://doi.org/10.1111/ mam.12032>
Katz JS & BR Martin. 1997. What is research collaboration? Research Policy 26(1): 1-18. <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1>
Lauer G. 2016. The ESF Scoping Project ‘Towards a Bibliometric Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities’. In: Ochsner M, S Hug & HD Daniel (eds). Research assessment in the humanities, pp. 73-77. Springer, Cham. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_6>
Lercari D. 2021. Analysis of three decades of research in marine sciences in Uruguay through mapping of science and bibliometric indexes. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research 49(1): 1-17. <https://doi.org/10.3856/vol49-issue1-fulltext-2584>
Melin G & O Persson. 1996. Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics 36: 363-377. <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02129600>
Moed HF, M Luwei & AJ Nederhof. 2002. Towards research performance in the humanities. Library Trends 50(3): 498-520.
Moody J & R Light. 2006. A view from above: the evolving sociological landscape. American Sociologist 37: 67-86. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-006-1006-8>
Palacios DM, CCA Martins & C Olavarría. 2014. Aquatic mammal science in Latin America: a bibliometric analysis for the first eight years of the Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals (2002-2010). Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 9(2): 42-64. <https://doi.org/10.5597/lajam00174>
Paine RT. 2005. Cross environment talk in ecology: fact or fantasy? Marine Ecology Progress Series 304: 280-283.
Pautasso M. 2012. Publication growth in biological sub-fields: patterns, predictability and sustainability. Sustainability 4: 3234-3247. <https://doi.org/10.3390/su4123234>
Perón F. 1816. Voyage de découvertes aux terres australes. Historique. 2. Voyage de découvertes aux terres australes, exécuté sur les Corvettes le Géographe, le Naturaliste, et la Goëlette le Casuarina, pendent les années 1800, 1801, 1802, 1803, et 1804, 471 pp. I’Imprimiere Royale, Paris. <https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/96198#page/9/mode/1up>
Prieto R, F Janiger, MA Silva, GT Waring & JM Goncalves. 2012. The forgotten whale: a bibliometric analysis and literature review of the North Atlantic sei whale Balaenoptera borealis. Mammal Review 42: 235-272. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2011. 00195.x>
R Core Team. 2016. A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. <https://www.R-project.org/>
Sepúlveda M, SD Newsome, G Pavez, D Oliva, DP Costa & LA Hückstädt. 2015. Using satellite tracking and isotopic information to characterize the impact of South American sea lions on salmonid aquaculture in southern Chile. PLoS ONE 10(8): e0134926. <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134926>
Szteren D & D Lercari. 2022. Marine mammal research in South America: 30 years of publication efforts and collaborative networks. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research 50(2): 251-266. <https://doi.org/10.3856/vol50-issue2-fulltext-2810>
Tabah AN. 1999. Literature dynamics: studies on growth, diffusion, and epidemics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 34: 249-286.
Torres D, A Aguayo-Lobo & J Acevedo. 2000. Los mamíferos marinos de Chile: II. Carnivora. Serie Científica INACH 50: 25-103.
UNESCO. 2017. Global Ocean Science Report - The current status of ocean science around the world, 277 pp. UNESCO Publishing, Paris.
van Eck NJ & L Waltman. 2007. VOS: a new method for visualizing similarities between objects. In: Lenz HJ & R Decker (eds). Advances in data analysis, pp. 299-306. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the German Classification Society, Springer, Berlin.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2024 Jorge Acevedo
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
• Los autores que publican en la RBMO transfieren sus derechos de publicación a la Universidad de Valparaíso, conservando los derechos de propiedad intelectual para difundir ampliamente el artículo y la revista en cualquier formato.
• La RBMO autoriza el uso de figuras, tablas y extractos breves de su colección de manuscritos, en trabajos científicos y educacionales, siempre que se incluya la fuente de información.
