The independent report commissioned three neutral experts about the research career of the current rector of the University of Salamanca, Juan Manuel Corchado, is already on the table. Commissioned by the professor of the University of León Salvador Rus Rufinoproposed to analyze the veracity of the accusations made against the man who today heads the direction of the Salamancan study on “alleged bad practices”, according to the document itself, from the rector concerning the self-citations of their work This would have allowed it to climb the search rankings.
And the main conclusion they came to is that the level of citation of their own works is “within the limits of appropriate thresholdsThe three experts were commissioned to carry out the independent study after the Spanish Research Ethics Committee published its own report on the subject.
This body ruled on June 11 after Corchado was elected rector of the University of Salamanca on accusations of scientific misconduct that caused a great media and social uproar and to which the Ministry – before the elections to the Rectorate on 7 May – he instructed the Commission to give its opinion on the matter.
Adapted tools
The result was that the body that guarantees the ethics of the research exercise asked the Salmancan study itself for a ““exhaustive and independent fact-checking”. Thus, it was the University itself which, within a board of directors, approved the names of those who should lead This neutral investigation to determine whether the rector had committed professional misconduct in the publication and dissemination of his research work.
Now we know the verdict of the independent experts and the content of their arguments. The main conclusion reached by Rus Rufino, Rosa María Aranda and Antonio Calonge – the other two signatories of the text – is that “self-citation levels” by Dr. Juan M. Corchado in the reference bibliometric tools, WoS and Scopus, can be found within the limits of appropriate thresholds.
And the study focused on these two instruments, considering that they are appropriate for the assessment they have carried out. In addition, they emphasize that they are the ones that can provide a “valid information on the real impact of a researcher” while discarding others that he felt would not be as effective for analysis.
The signatories of the study, who claim to have in turn requested “technical reports” from anonymous and independent “national and international” experts and to have questioned various members of the university community, including the rector, also stress that the The system of monitoring and measuring appointments has “multiplied” as “technology” has evolved.
But they insist once again in another of their conclusions that “the citations that appear in the scientific articles” of Corchado “they are coherent and well-founded” and that “the number of self-citations provided by portals such as Scopus or WoS is within the parameters accepted by the scientific community.
The formal channel
They also assure, collecting the reflections of other authors, such as the scientist John Ioannidis, that “Citing one’s own work is not necessarily bad scientific practice and “cannot be convicted in absentia.” Self-citation is often entirely appropriate, as an author must fairly and accurately present the previous work that he or his co-authors or collaborators have done.
In another conclusion, the heads of the independent investigation also point out that “the relevance of the research” of the current rector and professor of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, “among his colleagues, assigned to the University of Salamanca, it is very high in terms of volume of publications and high in terms of “h index”, even when self-citations and citations of co-authors.
Finally, they include a slap on the wrist to Corchado reminding him that in the case of Gredos de la Usal DepotRegarding the scientific work, in which he “verbally” requested that measures be taken on his documentation, “he did not follow the established formal path.”
