Scientific performance in Ecuador has been traditionally low; however, in recent years, government has put various policies in place aimed at improving outcomes. This is an analysis of scientific impact of Ecuadorian publications using bibliometric tools for the 2006-2015 period. Impact of publications produced by Ecuadorian researchers is low; however, it highly increased with international collaboration mostly from North America and Europe, what allowed the publication of articles in journals of high level and prestige.
Álvarez-MuñozP.Pérez-MontoroM. (2015). Análisis de la producción y de la visibilidad científica de Ecuador en el contexto Andino [Analysis of production and scientific visibility of Ecuador in the Andean context] (2000-2013). El profesional de la información, 24, 577-586.
3.
AragónA. M. (2013). A measure for the impact of research. Scientific Reports, 3, Article 1649.
4.
AustinA. (2002). Academic staff in times of transformation: Roles, challenges, and professional development needs. In ChapmanD.AustinA. (Eds.), Higher education in the developing world: Changing contexts and institutional responses (pp. 233-250). Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
5.
Ayala-MoraE. (2015). La investigación científica en las universidades ecuatorianas [Scientific research in Ecuadorian universities]. Anales, 57, 61-72.
6.
BinkaF. (2005). North–South research collaborations: A move towards a true partnership?Tropical Medicine and International Health, 10, 207-209.
7.
BornmannL. (2017). Measuring impact in research evaluations: A thorough discussion of methods for, effects of and problems with impact measurements. Higher Education, 73, 775-787.
8.
CastilloJ. A.PowellM. A. (2018). Análisis de la producción científica del Ecuador e impacto de la colaboración internacional en el periodo. Revista Española de Documentación Científica [Analysis of the scientific production e impact of international collaboration for the period] (2006-2015). Manuscript accepted for publication.
9.
ChadeganiA. A.SalehiH.YunusM. M.FarhadiH.FooladiM.FarhadiM.EbrahimN. A. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 18-26.
10.
DehdariradT.NasiniS. (2017). Research impact in co-authorship networks: A two-mode analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11, 371-388.
11.
FalagasM. E.KouranosV. D.Arencibia-JorgeR.KarageorgopoulosD. E. (2008). Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal, 22, 2623-2628.
12.
GaillardJ. F. (1994). North-south research partnership: Is collaboration possible between unequal partners?Knowledge and Policy, 7(2), 31-63.
13.
GarcíaJ. A.Rodriguez-SánchezR.Fdez-ValdiviaJ.Martinez-BaenaJ. (2012). On first quartile journals which are not of highest impact. Scientometrics, 90, 925-943.
14.
Guerrero-BoteV. P.Moya-AnegónF. (2012). A further step forward in measuring journals scientific prestige: The SJR2 indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 674-688.
15.
HausteinS.LarivièreV. (2015). The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: Possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In WelpeI.WollersheimJ.RingelhanS.OsterlohM. (Eds.), Incentives and performance (pp. 121-139). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
16.
HirschJ. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569-16572.
17.
HollanderM.WolfeD. A.ChickenE. (2014). Nonparametric statistical methods (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
JacsóR. (2009). The h-index for countries in the Web of Science and Scopus. Online Information Review, 33, 831-837.
20.
JohnsonM. A. (2017). Contemporary higher education reform in Ecuador: Implications for faculty recruitment, hiring, and retention. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(68), 1-16.
21.
LehmannS.JacksonA. D.LautrupB. E. (2006). Measures for measures. Nature, 444, 1003-1004.
22.
LemarchandG. A. (2015). Latin America. In SchneegansS. (Ed.). UNESCO science report: Towards 2030 (pp. 174-209). Paris, France: UNESCO.
23.
LoorF.CarrielV. (2014). Investigación y desarrollo en Ecuador: un análisis comparativo entre América Latina y el Caribe [Research and development in Ecuador: An analysis comparison between Latin America and the Caribbean] (2000-2012). Compendium, 1(2), 28-46.
24.
LoyolaR. D.Diniz-FilhoJ. A.BiniL. M. (2012). Obsession with quantity: A view from the south. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27, 585-588.
25.
MartinB. R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36, 343-362.
MedinaJ.CorderoL.CarrilloP.RodriguezD.CastilloJ. A.AstudilloI.PowellM. (2016). Investigación científica. In RamírezR. (Ed.), Universidad urgente para una sociedad emancipada [Urgent university for an emancipated society] (pp. 461-494). Quito, Ecuador: Secretariat of Higher Education, Science, Technology and Innovation–International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean.
28.
MongeonP.Paul-HusA. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213-228.
SchreiberM. (2008). An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1513-1522.
SeglenP. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 628-638.
34.
SisaI.EspinelM.FornasiniM.MantillaG. (2011). La producción científica en ciencias de la salud en Ecuador [Scientific production of health sciences in Ecuador]. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 30, 388-392.
ThorneF. C. (1977). The citation index: Another case of spurious validity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 1157-1161.
37.
Van HoofH. B. (2015). Ecuador’s efforts to raise its research profile: The prometeo program case study. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 14, 56-68.
38.
Van HoofH. B.EljuriM. I.EstrellaM.TorresL. (2013). Ecuador’s higher education system in times of change. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 12, 345-355.
