Bibliometrics evidences of scientific recognition in reviews and interviews theoretical notes and analysis model

Hayashi, Maria Cristina Piumbato Innocentini

doi:10.20396/rdbci.v18i00.8660743/25723

Maria Cristina Piumbato Innocentini Hayashi

Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brasil / e-mail: dmch@ufscar.br

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1250-3767

Categories	Indicators
Review profile	Year of publication; title of the review and journal. Authorship (individual or coauthorship). Biographical summary of the reviewed author(s). Citation of other works. Summary of the work or uncritical praise; Critical review.
Profile of the reviewed work	Title of the work and name of the author (s) or organizer (s). Year of publication, country, language, edition; publisher (academic or commercial). Type of work (book, collection, handbook, others). Type of authorship (individual, coauthorship, institutional). Languages; Portuguese translation. Work resulting from academic work (eg thesis, dissertation). Time elapsed between the publication of the review and the reviewed work. Work indexed in Google Books, BKCI, SciELO Books. Work reviewed in other journals.
Profile of the author (s) reviewed	Academic education; genre; institutional affiliation and country; field of studies in which it is inserted; scientific authority in the field of knowledge of the work; previous relationship with the reviewer.
Profile of the reviewers	Academic education; genre; institutional affiliation and country; field of studies in which it is inserted; member of the editorial board of the journal that published the review; junior researchers (graduate and postdoctoral students), senior researcher; prior relationship with the author of the work; reviewer and reviewee are peers in the same discipline; reviewer who prepared more than one review.
Values attributed to the reviewed work	Intrinsic qualities of the work (eg, innovative theoretical and methodological aspects) and extrinsic (eg, reference work in a given field of knowledge, and with many citations inside and outside the area). Contributions of the work to the advancement of knowledge in the area. Critical silences or omissions present in the work. Evaluation of the merit of the work and the reputation of the author. Relationship of the reviewed work with others in the field. Critical evaluations (favorable or negative) of the work or previous works of the author(s); comparison with similar works. Alert or persuade the reader about something, and spread new ideas.
Interview profile	Year of publication, title of the interview and the journal. Biographical synthesis of the interviewee (s); Contextualization of the topic addressed. Contact situation and circumstances of the interview (online; face-to-face; unplanned, eg during a scientific event). Scientific methodology adopted in the interview. Citation of the interviewee's works and others.
Interviewer profile	Academic education; genre; institutional affiliation and country; field of studies in which it is inserted; junior or senior researcher; previous relationship with the interviewee, domain and familiarity with the topic; ease of interaction with the interviewee; security and self-confidence when asking questions; knowledge of the interviewee's curriculum and scientific production.
Interviewee profile	Academic education; genre; institutional affiliation and country; field of studies in which it is inserted; previous relationship with the interviewer; recognized authority in the scientific field; highly cited author; willingness to dialogue; ability to clearly state one’s views.
Values attributed to the interviews	Ability to synthesize the topic addressed; contribution to the academic debate; expansion of knowledge in the area; discourse organization; fidelity to the interviewee's thinking; formulating questions and offering answers that contemplate the lay and specialized public.

	Countries	Reviewer	Reviewee	Interviewer	Interviewee
South America	Argentina	3	2	1	0
	Brazil	72	52	10	4
	Chile	0	2	0	0
	Colombia	2	5	0	0
	Ecuador	0	2	0	0
	Uruguay	0	1	1	0
North America	USA	0	16	1	0
	Mexico	1	1	0	0
	Puerto Rico	0	1	0	0
Europe	Germany	0	1	0	0
	Spain	1	2	0	1
	France	0	0	0	1
	Ireland	0	2	0	0
	Portugal	2	2	0	2
	United Kingdom	0	3	0	0
Oceania	Australia	0	2	0	0
Africa	Mozambique	0	0	0	1
Asia	Israel	0	1	0	0
	Total	81	95	13	9

Countries	Universities	Authors	Others	Authors	Total of institutions	Total of authors
Brazil	43	125	5	6	48	131
Argentina	1	1	1	1	2	2
Colombia	3	6	1	1	4	7
Ecuador	2	2	0	0	2	2
Uruguay	0	0	2	2	2	2
USA	12	14	2	2	14	16
Canada	1	1	0	0	1	1
Mexico	2	2	0	0	2	2
Puerto Rico	1	1	0	0	1	1
Germany	1	1	0	0	1	1
Spain	2	5	0	0	2	5
France	1	1	0	0	1	1
Ireland	2	2	0	0	2	2
Portugal	4	4	0	0	4	4
United Kingdom	1	1	0	0	1	1
Australia	1	2	0	0	1	2
Israel	1	1	0	0	1	1
Total	78	169	11	12	89	181*

Indicators	Total
1. Time elapsed between the publication of the work and the review 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years	26 25 13 3 2
2. Languages and translation of works Works in Portuguese Works translated into Portuguese Works in Spanish (n=9) and English (n=8)	38 14 17
3. Countries of publication of works South America: Argentina (n = 2), Brazil (n = 50), Colombia (n = 1), Ecuador (n=1)	54
North America= USA (n=6), Mexico (n=1), Puerto Rico (n=1) Europe = Spain (n=4) Portugal (n=1), United Kingdom (n=1), Switzerland (n=1)	8 7
4. Works resulting from academic works Master's degree (n = 3); PhD (n = 8); Post doctorate (n=1)	12
5. Typology of works Anthologies (n = 2), Dossiers (n = 1); Collections (n = 18) Biography (n = 1) and memories (n = 3) Essays (n = 29); Academic research (n = 10) Poetry (n = 2); Romance (n = 1); Fiction (n = 1); Young Adult (n=1)	21 4 39 5
6. Biographical summary of the review Yes (n = 39); No (n=30)	69
7. Review features Summary of the work (n = 34); Critical review (n=35)	69
8. Citations in the review Yes (n = 59); No (n = 10) Total citations	69 280
9. Works indexed in Google Books Yes (n = 24); No (n = 25); No preview (n = 20)	69
10. Works already reviewed in other journals Yes (n = 42); No (n = 27)	69

Indicators	Total
1. Time elapsed between the interview and its publication 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 13 years 38 years	1 3 2 1 1 1
2. Interview locations Scientific events (n = 3); Home or workplace (n = 2); University (n = 1); Association (n = 1); Correspondence (n = 1) not applicable (n = 1)	9
3. Methodology adopted in the interviews Biographical (n = 3); With specialists (n = 3); Scientifically informed (n=3)	9
4. Biographical summary of the interviewee Yes (n=8); No (n=1)	9
5. Previous relationship between interviewer and interviewee Yes (n=2); No (n=7)	9
6. Contextualization of the theme addressed	9
7. Quotes in the interview	45
8. Interviewees cited in WoS	3

Intrinsic qualities of the reviewed work: a) the author joined the myriad of authors who challenged the conventions surrounding motherhood; b) the author was bold in her research methodology; c) the most innovative reflection in the book is the way in which temporality is approached; d) the work proposal is innovative because it does not stick to conventional modes of textual production.
Extrinsic qualities of the reviewed work: a) work with important contributions to all the disciplinary areas in which it fits; b) the work advances in discussions in the field of gender and politics and in its intersections with other areas, such as diplomatic history.
Critical evaluations of the work - 1) negative - the forms of motherhood that the author addresses in her text are mostly referenced by the middle and upper classes, leaving a wide range of women and their maternity units out of this dialogue; 2) positive - a) despite the criticisms, it is necessary to recognize how pedagogical the author's text is; b) an important contribution to the study of bisexualities, especially considering that it is the first to be written in Spain.
Critical silences and omissions present in the reviewed work - a) the narrative is primarily that of the history that permeates Europe and the USA; b) the book does not incorporate any representative of black feminism; c) the voices of activists are relatively overshadowed by theoretical reflections. Relationship of the work reviewed with others in the field - a) the work approaches authors from the Global North, from the texts of the Anglo-Saxon and French tradition that dominate the ideas of the social from the second half of the 20th century; b) Throughout the chapters the work recalls aspects of the book by the historian Thomas Laqueur; c) important contribution to gender theories.

Evaluation of the reputation of the reviewed author - a) The author was one of the founders of the Working Group “A Mulher na Literatura” of the National Association of Graduate Studies and Research in Letters and Linguistics (ANPOLL), and one of the main articulators of the theoretical repertoire emerged in this context, through the many articles he wrote; b) The author is recognized as one of the pioneering researchers on masculinities.
Ability to synthesize the theme of the work reviewed - a) pitfalls of maternal blame; b) gender inequalities in Brazilian democracy; c) black women and museum exhibitions.

Contributions of the interview to the academic debate and expansion of knowledge in the area - a) The interview is a movement towards the construction of women's stories, feminist stories, which marked the history of Brazilian graphic humor; b) the author also spoke of the importance of the new generation of African writers and the need for the feminist movement to be self-critical, in order to expand the inclusion of new knowledge; c) the author demonstrates how the literature produced in Mozambique dialogues with recent events in the country's history, marked by the war of liberation. Ability to synthesize the theme of the interview - a) construction of women's stories and feminist stories that marked the history of Brazilian graphic humor; b) being the object of oppression is not being a victim; c) black literature, black feminism and translation; c) war, women and memories; d) gender equality and family reconciliation.

[TFN7] Source: Elaborated by the author

Brasil

Brasil

Bibliometrics evidences of scientific recognition in reviews and interviews theoretical notes and analysis model

ABSTRACT

Introduction:

Objectives:

Method:

Results:

Conclusion: