UPV



Investigación


Publicada By  Juan Marin - Ciencia, Investigación, Uncategorized    

Con frecuencia recibo consultas acerca de mi opinión sobre la calidad de diferentes revisas. Supongo que me han preguntado porque consideran que soy una persona experta porque he invertido varios años como subdirector de investigación del Departamento de Organización de Empresas en diferentes equipos. O quizás sea por el seguimiento y apoyo que he dado a la comisión de Indice de Actividad Investigadora de la UPV a través de una cantidad bastante elevada de “gregales” (sistema de gestión de incidencias, quejas y sugerencias internas en la UPV) emitidos a lo largo de los últimos 10-12 años. También es posible que me pregunten por mi experiencia con todo el sistema de indexación ya que soy editor jefe o participo en el comité editorial de varias revisas “indexadas”.

La última tanda de preguntas recibidas tenía que ver sobre si se podía considerar como “indexada” determinada revista. Interesante cuestión que me ha animado a escribir esta entrada.

Primero quiero insistir en un asunto de terminología:  no se debería hablar de revistas indexadas o no indexadas… indexadas hay miles (es tremendamente sencillo estar indexada en algún sitio, es decir estar dada de alta en una base de datos de revistas científicas). Indexadas con indices relativos hay menos (muchas menos).

Indices relativos tienes en JCR, ScimagoJCR, pero también en Journal Scholar Metrics, google citations, DICE, MIAR, ICV de Copernicus … la dificultad está en definir cuáles de los indices relativos son fiables y dónde están los puntos de corte para marcar revistas de prestigio si el índice no crea bloques o cuartiles. Por ejemplo, Scimago JCR además del índice, agrupa la revistas en cuartiles; DICE tiene las revisas agrupadas en 4 niveles de mas a menos calidad;  pero MIAR o ICV-Copérnicus solo ponen un numero (cuanto más grande mejor, pero no sabes los puntos de corte por niveles).

A estos índices se pueden añadir aquellos desarrollos locales (nacionales, autonómicos, de una universidad o de una asociación científica) que se hayan creado con un fin específico. Por ejemplo, las universidades australianas han pactado un indice que les sirve de referencia; las universidades catalanas usan MIAR como referencia; la universidad de Cambridge tiene  un listado agrupado en 4 niveles (como hace el DICE) que indica cuáles son las revistas de más a menos prestigio; o, por poner un último ejemplo,  la UPV tiene una clasificación de revistas en 4 niveles (ahora están modificándolo para que sean 6), creada por la comisión del Valoración de la Actividad Investigadora de la UPV (que entra dentro del programa DOCENTIA, integra todos los campos científicos en la que la UPV se mueve y lo hace con el espíritu de que sea JUSTA la comparación inter-disciplinas. Además,  tiene un sistema de decisión auditado, sensato y establecido durante años). Por supuesto, ninguno de estos ejemplos es perfecto (no sólo porque es difícil tener claro el criterio que hace que una revisa científica sea de calidad o no) pero representan soluciones de compromiso alcanzadas a través de un consenso y que permiten tener un sistema más ajustado y acorde a las necesidades concretas de una institución.

Personalmente creo que, además de JCR y Scimago JCR, hay algunos otros indices solventes (Journal Scholar Metrics , google citations, DICE, MIAR, ICV de Copernicus…). Quizás, los más claros para el campo de la Organización de Empresas en España serían:

  • DICE-que surge de un convenido de CSIC con ANECA y la ANECA usa esta base de datos como referencia de calidad-
  • Journal Scholar Metrics (en el fondo se alimenta de datos de google scholar citations, pero lo mejora incorporando indicadores bibliométricos más potentes y categorizaciones).

Para finalizar, quería expresar una preocupación que me ha empezado a rondar por la cabeza. Me temo que pronto se disparará el negocio de crear indexadores. Hasta ahora, los índices de revistas que se valoran en España están en manos de grandes grupos editoriales multinacionales (Thompson, Elsevier y quizá Google se puede incluir en este paquete). Nos  hemos fiado de sus “rankings” porque son unas empresas monstruo que han intentado (y casi conseguido) tener el monopolio de este servicio. Pero, en el fondo, son entidades que velan por sus propios intereses y la ciencia es una escusa para hacer su negocio (que, en algunos casos, no es demasiado transparente). También hay índices que  han sido desarrollados por colectivos científicos independientes apoyados con fondos públicos nacionales aunque, paradógicamente, no son considerados por las propias instituciones que los financian, que prefieren dar prioridad a los listados de JCR o ScimagoJCR (también es cierto que España está financiando el desarrollo de JCR y scimagoJCR a través de la suscripción de la FECYT de SCOPUS y WEBofScience para todas las universidades públicas españolas).

En este contexto no resulta imposible imaginar (y esto es lo que me preocupa) que los mismos estafadores que inventan los predatory journals y los predatory meeting, ahora extiendan  su fraude orientándolo a los predatory indexes (porque seguro que hay un negocio en ordenar revistas y habrá gente está dispuesta a pagar una fortuna para que sus revistas estén en la parte TOP de algún indice -independientemente de las garantías científicas del indice-) y ese es un peligro al que tendremos que enfrentarnos en el futuro.

2016/11/23
  Comentarios
|   Etiquetas: |  

Publicada By  Juan Marin - Investigación    

http://euramonline.org/annual-conference-2017.html

Competency Development in Business Management: Improvement through Higher Education” is an Innovation SIG Track at the EURAM 2017 conference in Glasgow, Scotland, June 21-24. The track is organized by: Sara Urionabarrenetxea (University of the Basque Country), Juan Marin (Universitat Politècnica de València), Dolores Marquez (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona), Javier Paricio (University of Zaragoza), Massimo Bianchi (Bologna University), Chris Cowton (University of Huddersfield) and Carlos Fong (University of Guadalajara). We would like to encourage you to submit a paper for next year’s event and visit Glasgow in Scotland. Deadline for submission of papers is 10 January, 2017 2:00 pm GMT +1 (Belgian time) (The EURAM 2017 website Submission Portal will open for online submissions on November 3, 2016).

SIG 06: Innovation (INNO)

T 06_ 10 Competency Development in Business Management

Companies today are part of more complex and dynamic environments than ever, and this calls for new competencies for managers. Higher education must deal with this challenge, ensuring that students acquire appropriate competencies and that are trained in order to be able to continue learning throughout their lives (lifelong learning). There are certain crucial knowledge, skill, and ability (KSA) competencies: capacity for innovation, leadership, entrepreneurship, teamwork, conflict management and, above all, the ability to acquire and generate knowledge.

The purpose of the track is to analyze avenues for the development in higher education of skills related to business management.                                                         

Sara Urionabarrenetxea, Ph.D.
University of the Basque Country, Spain
sara.urionabarrenetxea@ehu.eus

Juan Marin, Ph.D.
Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain
jamarin@omp.upv.es

Dolores Marquez, Ph.D.
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
MariaDolores.Marquez@uab.cat

Javier Paricio, Ph.D.
University of Zaragoza, Spain
jparicio@unizar.es

Massimo Bianchi, Ph.D. and Laura Tampieri, Ph.D.
Bologna University, Italy
massimo.bianchi@unibo.it; laura.tampieri@unibo.it

Chris Cowton, Ph.D.
University of Huddersfield, UK
c.j.cowton@hud.ac.uk

Carlos Fong, Ph.D.
University of Guadalajara, Mexico
cfong@cucea.udg.mx

We look forward to meeting you in Glasgow.

 


Authors Guidelines and Submission Deadline:
As an author, it is crucial to follow the guidelines and formatting instructions to prepare and submit your paper in order to have it published in proceedings.
ONE PRESENTING AUTHOR PER PAPER SUBMISSION
Each individual is limited to one personal appearance on the programme as a presenting author. This policy precludes acceptance of papers for more than one presentation. In other words, an author can submit and present only one paper. However, a presenter can always be a non-presenting co-author on additional papers.
Please read the instructions carefully prior to submitting:
1. Each paper can only be submitted to ONE track.
2. Submitted papers must NOT have been previously published and if under review,
must NOT appear in print before EURAM 2017 Conference.
3. To facilitate the blind review process, remove ALL authors identifying information,
including acknowledgements from the text, and document/file properties. (Any
submissions with author information will be automatically DELETED; author
information and acknowledgements are to be included in a SEPARATE document).
4. The entire paper (title page, abstract, main text, figures, tables, references, etc.) must
be in ONE document created in PDF format.
5. The maximum length of the paper is 40 pages (including ALL tables, appendices and
references). The paper format should follow the European Management Review Style
Guide.
6. Use Times New Roman 12-pitch font, double spaced, and 1-inch (2.5 cm) margin all
around.
7. Number all of the pages of the paper.
8. No changes in the paper title, abstract, authorship, track and actual paper can occur
AFTER the submission deadline.
9. Check that the PDF File of your paper prints correctly and ensure that the file is virusfree.
Submissions will be done on-line on the EURAM 2017 website (open as of 1
December 2016: see http://www.euram-online.org/annual-conference-2017.html.)
10. Only submissions in English shall be accepted for review.
11. In case of acceptance, the author or one of the co-authors should be available to
present the paper at the conference. A presenting author can only present one paper at
the conference.

2016/10/26
  Comentarios

Publicada By  Juan Marin - APIODO, Investigación, PublishedPapers, Resultados, ROGLE    

Marin-Garcia, J., Andreu Andres, M., Atares-Huerta, L., Aznar-Mas, L., Garcia-Carbonell, A., González-Ladrón-de-Gevara, F., Montero Fleta, B., Perez-Peñalver, M., & Watts, F. (2016). Proposal of a Framework for Innovation Competencies Development and Assessment (FINCODA). WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management, 7(2), 119-126. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/wpom.v7i2.6472

In this article we propose an innovation competence model of the people which is based on the existing literature to integrate and complement existing models. The main contribution of this work consists in demonstrating the differences and similarities of current models and in providing a conceptual definition for each model element. In this way, both researchers and people in charge of human resources in companies obtain a framework with which to design measuring instruments to assess innovation competence, which can fulfill the twofold demand of validity and reliability.

This work has been conducted as part of a European project financed by the European Union [“FINCODA” Project 554493-EPP-1-2014-1-FI-EPPKA2-KA] (http://bit.ly/FINCODA-EUsite01). (The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein); and by the Universitat Politénica de Valencia PIME/2015/A/009/A “Evaluation of innovative behavior indicators in university students”.

Cartton abstract

Keywords

competence assessment; innovation; model; literature review
2016/09/28
  Comentarios
|   Etiquetas: ,  ,  ,  |  

Publicada By  Juan Marin - Conferences, Investigación, Resultados    

PASSAM: Peer ASSessment And Monitoring system
Juan A. Marín-García / José P. García-Sabater / Joan Morant-Llorca / J. Alberto Conejero Casares
(Universitat Politècnica de València)

https://media.upv.es/player/?id=a604aef0-4f33-11e6-9eff-b5d24d1eee47&autoplay=true

<iframe allowfullscreen src=”https://media.upv.es/player/embed.html?id=a604aef0-4f33-11e6-9eff-b5d24d1eee47″ style=”border:0px #FFFFFF none;” name=”Paella Player” scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ marginheight=”0px” marginwidth=”0px” width=” 540″ height=”304 “></iframe>

2016/07/22
  Comentarios
|   Etiquetas: ,  ,  |  

Publicada By  Juan Marin - Investigación, ROGLE    

Here you can see a good example of how to follow  The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), in particular for this point:

  • Encourage responsible authorship practices and the provision of information about the specific contributions of each author.

In this article:

Imagen 1

And this information was added:

Imagen 005

Guardar

Guardar

Guardar

2016/06/04
  Comentarios
|   Etiquetas: ,  ,  |  

Publicada By  Juan Marin - Investigación, PublishedPapers    

2016/02/03
  Comentarios
|   Etiquetas: ,  |  

Publicada By  Juan Marin - Investigación, PublishedPapers, Resultados, Uncategorized    

MARIN-GARCIA, Juan A.. Publishing in two phases for focused research by means of “research collaborations”. WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management, [S.l.], v. 6, n. 2, p. 76-80, dec. 2015. ISSN 1989-9068. Available at: <http://polipapers.upv.es/index.php/WPOM/article/view/4459>. Date accessed: 27 dec. 2015. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/wpom.v6i2.4459.

(La publicación en dos fases para la investigación enfocada a través de “research collaborations”)

We present and justify a new way to research and publish. This proposal is not intended to substitute or replace traditional ways of doing science, but rather complement, filling a gap and providing an efficient way to achieve scientific advances. The process begins with the sending a proposal of protocol to WPOM. Proposals are evaluated in each of the collaborations, depending on the potential to fill a research niche in the area. In the case of accepted protocols, WPOM guarantees commitment to publish the article if the protocol and deadlines are met. Thus, researchers can develop their projects focusing on meeting the protocol that has been approved without the question of whether, once completed, research is relevant or if the methodology is correct.

—-

En este artículo presentamos y justificamos una nueva forma de investigar y publicar. Esta propuesta no pretende sustituir o reemplazar a los modos tradicionales de hacer ciencias, sino complementarlos, rellenando una laguna y ofreciendo un camino eficiente para lograr los avances científicos. El proceso se inicia con el envío de la propuesta de protocolo WPOM. Las propuestas se evalúan, en cada una de las collaborations, en función del potencial para cubrir un nicho de investigación en el área. En el caso de ser aceptados los protocolos, WPOM garantiza un compromiso de publicación del artículo si se cumple el protocolo y plazos prometidos en el proyecto. De este modo, los investigadores pueden desarrollar proyectos de escritura centrándose en cumplir el protocolo que ha sido aprobado, sin la incógnita de si, una vez terminada, la investigación es relevante o si la metodología es la correcta.

 

Keywords

focused research; protocol; collaboration;Investigación enfocada; protocolos
2015/12/27
  Comentarios
|   Etiquetas: ,  |  

Publicada By  Juan Marin - Investigación, PublishedPapers, Resultados    

Marin-Garcia, J. A., & Santandreu-Mascarell, C. (2015). What do we know about rubrics used in higher education? Intangible Capital, 11(1), 118-145. doi: 1697-9818 – Print ISSN: 2014-3214
http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.538

Acceso al PDF del documento:

http://www.intangiblecapital.org/index.php/ic/article/view/538/462

Purpose: In this paper we compare the search strategies and the results of three recent literature reviews on the rubrics use in education. With all this we aim to identify what is known, what it is not known yet and if there is material to launch a new literature review right now.

Design/methodology/approach: Comparative analysis of three recen literature reviews and systematic literature review.

Findings and Originality/value: Of the 142 papers included in the three recent reviews, few focus on university learning and the results are not broken down by educational level. We believe that there is no conclusive scientific answer to how to create and validate an assessment rubric for university courses, or what purpose they serve , or if it’s worth the effort to develop them. Recommendations for the appropriate use of rubrics are based on anecdotal evidence without robust and proven methodology. Nor is easy to find what subjects, or what objects, and in what contexts have been investigated the rubrics or which validated rubrics are available.

Originality/value: we conducted a new review and we compare the selected papers with those used in previous reviews. We have located 241 new papers not included in previous reviews. Probably all this new material can be used in the future for a meta-analysis

Keywords

rating; scoring; rubric; Higher Education; systematic Literature Review; assessment instrument; educational; learning; self-assessment; peer-assessment
2015/04/23
  Comentarios
|   Etiquetas: ,  |  

Publicada By  Juan Marin - APIODO, Investigación, ROGLE    

EICE IEMA (Innovación en la Evaluación para la Mejora del Aprendizaje)

Framework for Innovation Competencies Development and Assessment (FINCODA) 554493-EPP-1-2014-1-FI-EPPKA2-KA

Related to the following “Competencias transversales UPVlc”:

  • Creatividad
  • Innovación
  • Trabajo en equipo
  • Liderazgo

Introduction:

Universities don’t have tools to measure the development of students’ innovation competencies during their studies. Therefore we don’t actually know what teaching and learning methods are effective when aspiring the enhancement of innovation competencies, although we should organize higher education in a cost-effective way.

Companies are lacking of tools and methods to assess innovation competencies as part of their knowledge management activities: in recruitment processes, in internal development activities and when subcontracting training services for their staff.

We urgently need new reliable and valid tools for innovation competencies assessment that could be used throughout the young innovators path from university to working life organizations.

Our project perfectly implements two priorities of ET 2020 Strategic Framework, namely “Strategic objective 2: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training” and “Strategic objective 4: Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship, at all levels of education and training”. To make these priorities true in higher education, we need active university-enterprise cooperation and valid tools to measure intended learning outcomes.

FINCODA project will produce several remarkable tangible outputs:

  • A toolkit for behaviour assessment: available as an electronic guide on the Internet. It can be used as a self learning material of guide for training purposes.
  • Software application for innovation competencies assessment (basic version is OER and more advanced versions may include small fee for maintenance work of the tool)
  • Massive Open Online Courses related to:
    • Behaviour assessment (MOOC 1)
    • Behaviour assessment and the use of innovation competencies assessment tool (MOOC 2)
  • Workshop (Joint Rater training workshop for all Partners). Month 13

Rater training workshop, targeted mainly for partner organizations. It will be organized in Hamburg Germany. It serves the purposes of training key staff from all partners to behaviour assessment as well as testing the novel toolkit. Participants will later on act as trainers in their own organizations and in cooperation events with other stakeholders.

  • Workshops (Innovation competencies assessment workshops). Months 26-35

Innovation competencies assessment workshops will be organized in all partner countries. There will be joint format agreed in project level and HE partners are responsible for organizing those workshops in their countries, by utilizing their expertise and premises. In English, Finnish, Dutch, Spanish, German.

Members

5 European universities that form a strategic alliance called CARPE (Consortium of Applied Research and Professional Education).

  • TUAS (Turku University of Applied Science), HAW (Hamburg University of Applied Sciences), HU (University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands) , MMU (Manchester Metropolitan University), UPVLC (Universitat Politècnica de València).

9 Employers of innovators and developers of new innovations; innovation intensive companies from 5 different corners of Europe.

  • Elomatic Ltd (Finland). Leading European consulting & engineering company and a global provider of 3D Plant & Ship Design Software Cadmatic with over 700 engineering professionals.
  • Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG (HHLA, Germany) makes annually enormous investments in both vocational and in-service training for their nearly 5000 employees.
  • Lactoprot (Germany) use outstanding innovative technologies to optimize production processes and quality in their core business. Focused on the processing of milk.
  • ECDL (The Netherlands) is a multinational operator that has profound experience working with schools, educators and commercial enterprises.
  • John Caunt Scientific Ltd. (UK) specializes in product innovation as the core activity of their nuclear radiation detection, measurement and shielding products business.
  • Carter & Corson Partnership Ltd. (UK) has over 14 years’ experience in designing, developing and implementing competency frameworks and diagnostics in recruitment, assessment, development and training. They will work closely with partner HEIs in refinement and validation of assessment tool.
  • Enterprise Europe Northwest EENNW (UK). Professional network targeted at helping SMEs, Universities & organizations to grow, be competitive & partner within Europe & third country partners.
  • Celestica (Spain) provide electronics manufacturing services by their 30 000 employees and execute their business in Centers of Excellence strategically located in North America, Europe and Asia.
  • Schneider Electric España SA creates new innovations to meet the planet’s energy challenge and make the smart grid a reality.

HE students and staff of participating companies.

Overview of short term results and long term outcome indicators

Short term   results Target groups/potential beneficiaries Quantitative indicators Qualitative indicators
New practical and academic knowledge about the innovation competences Companies, work places, academics Number of publications Topics of discussion among practitioners and academics
Innovation competencies assessment Barometer HR people in companies, students and teachers in universities Frequency of use of Barometer Web service User feedback

 

Long term   outcome Target groups/potential beneficiaries Quantitative indicators Qualitative indicators
Curriculum development in HEIs Students Numbers of courses assessed by innovation competence criteria Completion rates

Feedback from students in student satisfaction surveys

 

Personnel assessment methods Companies, workers Performance of recruitment process, number of new innovations Maturity of staff to participate innovation intensive work
New cooperation level between companies and universities Companies, work places, students Number of agreements between companies and universities based on the recruitment path framework Succeeding in the first recruitment according to students and employers

 

 

 

Contacto:

Juan A. Marin-Garcia (DOE)

jamarin@omp.upv.es

Coordinador del proyecto en UPVlc

2015/02/04
  Comentarios
|   Etiquetas: ,  |  

Publicada By  Juan Marin - APIODO, Investigación, PublishedPapers, Resultados, ROGLE    

Rediseñando el trabajo en las aulas universitarias: Factores relacionados con la satisfacción en estudiantes de ingeniería y administración de empresas
Marin-Garcia, J. A., Martínez-Gómez, M., & Giraldo-O’Meara, M. (2014). Redesigning work in university classrooms: factors related to satisfaction in engineering and business administration students. Intangible Capital, 10, 1026-1051.

Resumen

Objeto: Con este trabajo se pretende analizar cómo afectan las características del contexto del aprendizaje, es decir, cómo es el trabajo de los estudiantes en la asignatura, al potencial motivador de la asignatura y a la satisfacción de los estudiantes

Diseño/metodología: Mediante ecuaciones estructurales (SEM) se ha analizado los datos de una muestra transversal (cursos 2008, 2009 y 2010) de 535 estudiantes de ingeniería industrial y administración de empresas, de una universidad pública española.

Aportaciones y resultados: Los resultados, utilizando un instrumento validado y adaptado al mundo docente, demuestran la asociación existente entre las características del tipo de trabajo de los estudiantes, el perfil motivador de la asignatura  y la satisfacción.

Limitaciones: la escala de identidad no tiene un ajuste excesivamente bueno y sus resultados deberían considerarse tentativos. La muestra es limitada para generalizar las conclusiones, debería extenderse en el futuro a otras universidades y contemplar estudiantes de posgrado.

Valor añadido: en este trabajo confirmamos que se cumple el modelo JDS adaptado a la docencia. Comprobamos que las variedad, la identidad, la significación, la autonomía, la retroalimentación del puesto y la retroalimentación social  son elementos de un constructo de segundo orden que representa el perfil motivador de de la asignatura y que los valores de este constructo están relacionados positiva, significativa y sustancialmente con la satisfacción general percibida por el estudiante. También hemos comprobado que estas relaciones se mantienen en muestras de alumnos de diferentes años o de titulaciones bastante dispares. Gracias a ello, los profesionales docentes pueden utilizar el modelo de  análisis y rediseño de puesto para ayudar a favorecer la motivación y la satisfacción de sus estudiantes.

Palabras clave

rediseño de puestos de trabajo; motivación; satisfacción; contexto del aprendizaje; JDS; educación universitaria

Texto completo: PDF[es]

Abstract

Purpose: We analyze how it affects the teaching model to motivational potential of the course and student satisfaction. Design/methodology: Using structural equation modeling (SEM) has analyzed data from a cross-section (2008, 2009 and 2010) of 535 students of industrial engineering and business administration, a Spanish public university.

Findings: The results, using a validated instrument adapted to the teaching world, demonstrate the association between the characteristics of the type of student work, the motivating potential of the subject and satisfaction.

Research limitations/implications: The Identity scale does not have good fit and the results should be considered tentative. The sample is limited and does not allow to generalize the findings, it should be extended in the future to include other universities and graduate students.

Originality/value: This work confirm that the JDS model adapted to teaching is met. We found that the variety, identity, significance, autonomy, job feedback and social feedback are elements of a second-order construct representing the motivating potential of the subject and that the values of this construct are positively related, significantly and substantially to the overall satisfaction perceived by the student. We have also found that these relationships are maintained on samples of students from different years or rather different degrees. As a result, education professionals can use the model for analysis and redesign of jobs to help foster motivation and student satisfaction.

Keywords

Job redesign, Motivation, Satisfaction, Learning context, JDS, Higher education, University

Full Text: PDF[es]

2014/12/24
  Comentarios
|   Etiquetas: ,  |  

Página siguiente »

Universidad Politécnica de Valencia