奇瓦瓦自治大学教授的创造力相关特征和科学成果

Claudia C. Delgado-Carreón, Juan D. Machin-Mastromatteo, José Refugio Romo-González, Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza
{"title":"奇瓦瓦自治大学教授的创造力相关特征和科学成果","authors":"Claudia C. Delgado-Carreón, Juan D. Machin-Mastromatteo, José Refugio Romo-González, Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza","doi":"10.1108/DLP-08-2020-0077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis work studied the influence of creativity-related traits in university professors’ scientific productivity.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA survey, applied to 120 university professors, included closed-ended questions for participants to rate 33 items derived from the specialized literature and classified into five dimensions (novelty; flexibility-fluidity; achievements-dedication; confidence; and problem-solving). After the survey was applied, data were merged with three other data sets: bibliometric data (Scopus), Altmetrics (Dimensions) and peer-reviews and editorial management (Publons) for the period from 2013 to 2018. Descriptive, correlational and inferential statistical analyzes were conducted on the data collected.\n\n\nFindings\nThere was little relationship between professors’ creativity scores and their bibliometric and Altmetric indicators. The highest-rated creativity dimension was flexibility-fluidity and the most prominent creativity-related trait was “I perform my activities with dedication” (belonging to the achievements-dedication dimension). During the period studied, professors published 379 documents, but there were large gaps among their indicators; for instance, only 61 professors published in journals indexed in Scopus during the period. The inferential analysis implied that the professors with the best indicators did not present substantial differences in their creativity scores when compared to their colleagues with fewer or no indicators. However, descriptive and correlational insights may aid in fostering the aspects that can positively influence creativity and the indicators studied.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nAlthough there is a wealth of literature about the study of creativity and part of it tackles creativity and scientific research at a theoretical level, this paper did not find other empirical studies that analyzed the relationship between creativity and scientific production. It might be important for librarians to be familiar with user studies such as the present, as they may consider studying these kinds of aspects in their users. Moreover, this study can be interesting because librarians have increasingly been involved in the evaluation of scientific production and in training processes for enhancing it within their institutions. Here, information professionals have found opportunities to improve users’ knowledge, performance and experiences on digital scientific ecosystems and their indicators.\n","PeriodicalId":438470,"journal":{"name":"Digit. Libr. Perspect.","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Creativity-related traits and the scientific production of professors from the Autonomous University of Chihuahua\",\"authors\":\"Claudia C. Delgado-Carreón, Juan D. Machin-Mastromatteo, José Refugio Romo-González, Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/DLP-08-2020-0077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThis work studied the influence of creativity-related traits in university professors’ scientific productivity.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nA survey, applied to 120 university professors, included closed-ended questions for participants to rate 33 items derived from the specialized literature and classified into five dimensions (novelty; flexibility-fluidity; achievements-dedication; confidence; and problem-solving). After the survey was applied, data were merged with three other data sets: bibliometric data (Scopus), Altmetrics (Dimensions) and peer-reviews and editorial management (Publons) for the period from 2013 to 2018. Descriptive, correlational and inferential statistical analyzes were conducted on the data collected.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThere was little relationship between professors’ creativity scores and their bibliometric and Altmetric indicators. The highest-rated creativity dimension was flexibility-fluidity and the most prominent creativity-related trait was “I perform my activities with dedication” (belonging to the achievements-dedication dimension). During the period studied, professors published 379 documents, but there were large gaps among their indicators; for instance, only 61 professors published in journals indexed in Scopus during the period. The inferential analysis implied that the professors with the best indicators did not present substantial differences in their creativity scores when compared to their colleagues with fewer or no indicators. However, descriptive and correlational insights may aid in fostering the aspects that can positively influence creativity and the indicators studied.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nAlthough there is a wealth of literature about the study of creativity and part of it tackles creativity and scientific research at a theoretical level, this paper did not find other empirical studies that analyzed the relationship between creativity and scientific production. It might be important for librarians to be familiar with user studies such as the present, as they may consider studying these kinds of aspects in their users. Moreover, this study can be interesting because librarians have increasingly been involved in the evaluation of scientific production and in training processes for enhancing it within their institutions. Here, information professionals have found opportunities to improve users’ knowledge, performance and experiences on digital scientific ecosystems and their indicators.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":438470,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Digit. Libr. Perspect.\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Digit. Libr. Perspect.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-08-2020-0077\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digit. Libr. Perspect.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-08-2020-0077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的研究大学教授创造力相关特质对科研生产力的影响。设计/方法/方法一项针对120名大学教授的调查,包括封闭式问题,让参与者对来自专业文献的33个项目进行评分,并将其分为五个维度(新颖性;flexibility-fluidity;achievements-dedication;信心;和解决问题)。在应用调查后,数据与其他三个数据集合并:2013年至2018年期间的文献计量数据(Scopus)、Altmetrics (Dimensions)和同行评审和编辑管理(Publons)。对收集到的数据进行描述性、相关性和推断性统计分析。研究发现:教授的创造力得分与他们的文献计量学和Altmetric指标之间几乎没有关系。得分最高的创造力维度是灵活性-流动性,与创造力相关的最突出的特征是“我全心全意地完成我的活动”(属于成就-奉献维度)。在研究期间,教授发表论文379篇,但指标差距较大;例如,在此期间,只有61位教授在Scopus索引的期刊上发表过文章。推论分析表明,与那些指标较少或没有指标的同事相比,那些指标最好的教授在创造力得分上并没有实质性的差异。然而,描述性和相关性的见解可能有助于培养对创造力和所研究的指标有积极影响的方面。虽然关于创造力的研究有大量的文献,其中有一部分是在理论层面上解决创造力和科学研究的问题,但本文没有发现其他实证研究分析创造力和科学生产之间的关系。对于图书馆员来说,熟悉用户研究(比如现在)可能很重要,因为他们可能会考虑研究用户的这些方面。此外,这项研究可能很有趣,因为图书馆员越来越多地参与科学成果的评价和在其机构内加强科学成果的培训过程。在这里,信息专业人员找到了改善用户在数字科学生态系统及其指标方面的知识、表现和体验的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Creativity-related traits and the scientific production of professors from the Autonomous University of Chihuahua
Purpose This work studied the influence of creativity-related traits in university professors’ scientific productivity. Design/methodology/approach A survey, applied to 120 university professors, included closed-ended questions for participants to rate 33 items derived from the specialized literature and classified into five dimensions (novelty; flexibility-fluidity; achievements-dedication; confidence; and problem-solving). After the survey was applied, data were merged with three other data sets: bibliometric data (Scopus), Altmetrics (Dimensions) and peer-reviews and editorial management (Publons) for the period from 2013 to 2018. Descriptive, correlational and inferential statistical analyzes were conducted on the data collected. Findings There was little relationship between professors’ creativity scores and their bibliometric and Altmetric indicators. The highest-rated creativity dimension was flexibility-fluidity and the most prominent creativity-related trait was “I perform my activities with dedication” (belonging to the achievements-dedication dimension). During the period studied, professors published 379 documents, but there were large gaps among their indicators; for instance, only 61 professors published in journals indexed in Scopus during the period. The inferential analysis implied that the professors with the best indicators did not present substantial differences in their creativity scores when compared to their colleagues with fewer or no indicators. However, descriptive and correlational insights may aid in fostering the aspects that can positively influence creativity and the indicators studied. Originality/value Although there is a wealth of literature about the study of creativity and part of it tackles creativity and scientific research at a theoretical level, this paper did not find other empirical studies that analyzed the relationship between creativity and scientific production. It might be important for librarians to be familiar with user studies such as the present, as they may consider studying these kinds of aspects in their users. Moreover, this study can be interesting because librarians have increasingly been involved in the evaluation of scientific production and in training processes for enhancing it within their institutions. Here, information professionals have found opportunities to improve users’ knowledge, performance and experiences on digital scientific ecosystems and their indicators.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A partnership between the library and the digital humanities scholars: interview with Plamen Miltenoff Identifying research fronts in NLP applications in library and information science using meta-analysis approaches Open access initiatives in European countries: analysis of trends and policies Cyber security in university libraries and implication for library and information science education in Nigeria The Cologne Public Library as accelerator of digitisation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1