Publications
I do not have a lot of publications yet, but I hope that the ones I have right now are of interest for you. If you have any questions or are interested in commenting my work I will be happy to receive any comments.
1.
Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Font-Julian, Cristina I.
Research on research visibility Journal Article
In: BiD: textos universitaris de biblioteconomia i documentació, no. 53, pp. 8, 2025, ISSN: 1575-5886.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Academic SEO, Informetrics, Meta-Science, Science Communication, Science of Science, Science Studies, Science Visibility, Scientometrics
@article{Orduña-Malea2024,
title = {Research on research visibility},
author = {Enrique Orduña-Malea and Cristina I. Font-Julian},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1344/bid2024.53.01},
issn = {1575-5886},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-01-23},
urldate = {2025-01-23},
journal = {BiD: textos universitaris de biblioteconomia i documentació},
number = {53},
pages = {8},
abstract = {This editorial explores the significance of research visibility within the evolving landscape of academic communication, mainly focusing on the role of search engines as online meta-markets shaping the impact of research. With the rapid expansion of scientific output and the increasing reliance on algorithm-driven platforms such as Google and Google Scholar, the online visibility of scholarly work has become an essential factor in determining its reach and influence. The need for more rigorous research into academic search engine optimization (A-SEO), a field still in its infancy despite its growing relevance, is also discussed, highlighting key challenges in the field, including the lack of robust research methodologies, the skepticism within the academic community regarding the commercialization of science, and the need for standardization in reporting and measurement techniques. This editorial thus invites a multidisciplinary dialogue on the future of research visibility, with significant implications for academic publishing, science communication, research evaluation, and the global scientific ecosystem.},
keywords = {Academic SEO, Informetrics, Meta-Science, Science Communication, Science of Science, Science Studies, Science Visibility, Scientometrics},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This editorial explores the significance of research visibility within the evolving landscape of academic communication, mainly focusing on the role of search engines as online meta-markets shaping the impact of research. With the rapid expansion of scientific output and the increasing reliance on algorithm-driven platforms such as Google and Google Scholar, the online visibility of scholarly work has become an essential factor in determining its reach and influence. The need for more rigorous research into academic search engine optimization (A-SEO), a field still in its infancy despite its growing relevance, is also discussed, highlighting key challenges in the field, including the lack of robust research methodologies, the skepticism within the academic community regarding the commercialization of science, and the need for standardization in reporting and measurement techniques. This editorial thus invites a multidisciplinary dialogue on the future of research visibility, with significant implications for academic publishing, science communication, research evaluation, and the global scientific ecosystem.
2.
Thelwall, Mike; Kousha, Kayvan; Abodli, Mashid; Stuart, Emma; Makita, Meiko; Font-Julian, Cristina I.; Wilson, Paul; Levitt, Jonathan
Is research funding always beneficial? A cross-disciplinary analysis of UK research 2014–20 Journal Article
In: Quantitative Science Studies, vol. 4, iss. 2, pp. 501-534, 2023, ISSN: 2641-3337.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Academic Careers, Research Funding, Research Grants, Research Quality, Scientometrics
@article{nokey,
title = {Is research funding always beneficial? A cross-disciplinary analysis of UK research 2014–20},
author = {Mike Thelwall and Kayvan Kousha and Mashid Abodli and Emma Stuart and Meiko Makita and Cristina I. Font-Julian and Paul Wilson and Jonathan Levitt},
editor = {Ludo Waltman},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00254},
issn = {2641-3337},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-03-25},
urldate = {2023-03-25},
journal = {Quantitative Science Studies},
volume = {4},
issue = {2},
pages = {501-534},
abstract = {While funding is essential for some types of research and beneficial for others, it may constrain academic choice and creativity. Thus, it is important to check whether it ever seems unnecessary. Here we investigate whether funded UK research tends to be higher quality in all fields and for all major research funders. Based on peer review quality scores for 113,877 articles from all fields in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021, we estimate that there are substantial disciplinary differences in the proportion of funded journal articles, from Theology and Religious Studies (16%+) to Biological Sciences (91%+). The results suggest that funded research is likely to be of higher quality overall, for all the largest research funders, and for 30 out of 34 REF Units of Assessment (disciplines or sets of disciplines), even after factoring out research team size. There are differences between funders in the average quality of the research supported, however. Funding seems particularly associated with higher research quality in health-related fields. The results do not show cause and effect and do not take into account the amount of funding received, but are consistent with funding either improving research quality or being won by high-quality researchers or projects.},
keywords = {Academic Careers, Research Funding, Research Grants, Research Quality, Scientometrics},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
While funding is essential for some types of research and beneficial for others, it may constrain academic choice and creativity. Thus, it is important to check whether it ever seems unnecessary. Here we investigate whether funded UK research tends to be higher quality in all fields and for all major research funders. Based on peer review quality scores for 113,877 articles from all fields in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021, we estimate that there are substantial disciplinary differences in the proportion of funded journal articles, from Theology and Religious Studies (16%+) to Biological Sciences (91%+). The results suggest that funded research is likely to be of higher quality overall, for all the largest research funders, and for 30 out of 34 REF Units of Assessment (disciplines or sets of disciplines), even after factoring out research team size. There are differences between funders in the average quality of the research supported, however. Funding seems particularly associated with higher research quality in health-related fields. The results do not show cause and effect and do not take into account the amount of funding received, but are consistent with funding either improving research quality or being won by high-quality researchers or projects.