Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
Original article. Revista multidisciplinaria investigación Contemporánea.
Vol. 3 - No. 1, pp. 121- 147. January-June, 2025. e-ISSN: 2960-8015
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology
Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility
Evaluación Bibliométrica de Revistas de Psicología en
Scimago: Impacto y Visibilidad Cientíca
1 Universidad Politécnica Salesiana; aramirezc1@ups.edu.ec. Cuenca, Ecuador.
2 Universidad Politécnica Salesiana; jquito@ups.edu.ec. Cuenca, Ecuador.
3 Universidad Politécnica Salesiana; lcanizares@ups.edu.ec. Cuenca, Ecuador.
4 Universidad Politécnica Salesiana; pmunoza@ups.edu.ec. Cuenca, Ecuador.
5 Universidad Politécnica Salesiana; aloja@ups.edu.ec. Cuenca, Ecuador.
Andrés Ramírez 1*, Vanessa Quito 2, Lorena Cañizares 3,
Pedro Muñoz 4, Ana Loja 5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Cómo citar:
Ramírez , A., Quito, V., Cañizares, L. ., Muñoz, P. ., & Loja , A. . (2024). Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology
Journals in Scimago: Impact and Scientic Visibility. Revista Multidisciplinaria Investigación Contemporánea, 3(1).
https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Article information:
Received: 25-05-2024
Accepted: 04-10-2024
Published: 12-01-2025
Editor's note:
REDLIC remains neutral with respect to
jurisdictional claims in published messages
and institutional afliations.
Publisher:
Red Editorial Latinoamericana de Investigación
Contemporánea (REDLIC) www.editorialredlic.com
Sources of nancing:
The research was carried out with own resources.
Conicts of interest:
No conicts of interest.
This text is protected by a Creative Commons 4.0.
You are free to Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium
or format - and Adapt the document - remix, transform, and build upon the
material - for any purpose, including commercial purposes, provided you
comply with the condition of:
Attribution: you must credit the original work appropriately, provide a link
to the license, and indicate if changes have been made. You may do so in
any reasonable manner, but not in such a way as to suggest that you are
endorsed by or receive support from the licensor for your use of the work.
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 122 - 147
Resumen
Introduction: This study aims to analyze psychology journals indexed in the 2023
Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) to understand their impact and scientic visibility.
Methodology: A descriptive and analytical approach was employed based on
secondary data collected from the SJR database. The main metrics considered include
the SJR index, quartile ranking, and impact factor. Dynamic tables, visualizations,
and advanced statistical analyses such as correlations were used for the analysis.
Results: The results indicate a growing diversication in the eld of psychology,
with a notable increase in interdisciplinary and open-access journals. While high-
impact journals remain dominant, there is signicant growth in emerging journals
with rising SJR indices. The internationalization of psychology research is evident,
with broader global representation. A strong correlation between citation rates
and academic impact highlights the importance of visibility and accessibility.
Conclusion: The study provides a comprehensive view of the editorial landscape
in psychology and suggests future research directions, such as evaluating the
impact of emerging journals and tracking the evolution of trends in international
publications.
Keywords: psychology, bibliometrics, evaluation
Abstract
Introducción: Este estudio tiene como objetivo analizar las revistas indexadas
en el campo de la psicología, según el Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) 2023, para
comprender su impacto y visibilidad cientíca.Metodología: Se empleó un enfoque
descriptivo y analítico basado en la recopilación de datos secundarios de la base
SJR. Las principales métricas consideradas incluyen el índice SJR, ranking de
cuartil y factor de impacto. Para el análisis, se utilizaron tablas dinámicas, grácos
de visualización y análisis estadísticos avanzados, como correlaciones. Resultados:
Los resultados indican una creciente diversicación en el ámbito de la psicología,
con un notable aumento de revistas interdisciplinarias y de acceso abierto. Aunque
las revistas con alto impacto continúan siendo preeminentes, se observa un
crecimiento signicativo en el número de revistas emergentes con índices SJR en
ascenso. La internacionalización de la investigación en psicología es evidente, con
una mayor representación global. Se destaca una fuerte correlación entre las tasas
de citación y el impacto académico, lo que resalta la importancia de la visibilidad
y la accesibilidad. Conclusión: El estudio proporciona una visión integral del
panorama editorial en psicología y proponer futuras líneas de investigación, como
la evaluación del impacto de revistas emergentes y la evolución de tendencias en
publicaciones internacionales.
Palabras clave: psicología, bibliometría, evaluación
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 123 - 147
1. Introduction
The landscape of scientic research is evolving rapidly, with increasing
emphasis on understanding and quantifying the impact of scholarly work
(Diaz et al., 2021; Lewis, 2021). In this context, the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR)
and the H-index have emerged as prominent metrics for evaluating scientic
productivity and impact (Banasik-Jemielniak et al., 2022). The SJR, which
reects the average number of citations received per document published in a
journal, weighted by the prestige of the citing journals, provides a nuanced view
of journal inuence (Adair & Vohra, 2003). It accounts for both the quantity and
quality of citations, offering a more sophisticated measure of a journal’s impact
compared to traditional citation counts. Meanwhile, the H-index, developed
by physicist Jorge Hirsch, combines productivity (the number of publications)
and impact (the number of citations) into a single metric, aiming to capture a
researcher’s overall contribution to their eld (Ball, 2002).
Despite their widespread use, these metrics have inherent limitations. The
SJR, while incorporating citation quality, may still be inuenced by citation
practices that vary across disciplines and publication types (Tortosa-Pérez
et al., 2020). For example, certain elds may exhibit higher citation rates due
to their nature or audience, which can skew comparisons between journals
from different disciplines (Badenes-Sastre & Expósito, 2021). Additionally,
the H-index may favor researchers with a large number of publications and
high citations over those with fewer, potentially groundbreaking works, thus
overlooking signicant but less frequently cited contributions.
Moreover, both the SJR and H-index have been critiqued for their potential
to reinforce existing biases in the academic publishing world (Carey et al.,
2023). For instance, journals and researchers that are already well-established
may benet disproportionately from these metrics, perpetuating a cycle where
inuential work receives more recognition simply due to its prior acclaim.
This can undermine efforts to highlight emerging voices and interdisciplinary
research that do not t neatly into traditional categories (Yang & Shao, 2024).
In light of these challenges, it is essential to explore how the SJR and
H-index align with contemporary research evaluation goals and to consider
alternative or supplementary metrics that might offer a more comprehensive
assessment (Kalita et al., 2018; Roldan-Valadez et al., 2019). The current study
aims to critically assess the effectiveness of the SJR and H-index in capturing
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 124 - 147
the full spectrum of research productivity and impact. By investigating their
strengths and limitations, this research seeks to contribute to a more nuanced
understanding of scientic evaluation (Liu & Yang, 2024).
We will explore how these metrics reect the complexity of modern
research, including the increasing prominence of interdisciplinary studies and
the varying citation practices across elds (Mejia et al., 2021). Additionally, the
study will consider how socio-economic and institutional factors inuence
research output and impact, potentially affecting the validity of these metrics
(Yang & Shao, 2024). By proposing an integrated evaluation framework that
balances quantitative data with qualitative insights, the research aims to offer
a more holistic view of scientic achievement.
Ultimately, the goal is to enhance the effectiveness and fairness of
research evaluation processes, ensuring that they accurately reect the diverse
and evolving nature of scientic inquiry. This will be of great importance for
researchers, institutions, and policymakers who seek to promote excellence
and innovation in the global research community, ensuring that all valuable
contributions are recognized and supported. This study analyzes psychology
(Muthukrishna et al., 2021) journals indexed in the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR)
for 2023.
2. Materials and Methods
The methodology for analyzing indexed journals in the eld of psychology
for 2023, using the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) database, encompasses a
comprehensive approach designed to capture a detailed understanding of
journal metrics, trends, and patterns. This methodology is structured through
several key phases, including research design, data collection, and data analysis
(Ansari et al., 2020; Savage & Olejniczak, 2022; Szomszor et al., 2021).
The research design adopts a descriptive and analytical framework aimed
at assessing the current landscape of psychology journals. The primary goal
is to discern the top journals based on their impact, identify emerging trends,
and evaluate the distribution of journals across various quartiles. This design
enables a holistic understanding of journal inuence and its implications for
the eld of psychology.
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 125 - 147
For data collection, secondary data were sourced from the Scimago Journal
Rank (SJR) database (Manjarres et al., 2023), specically targeting psychology
journals for the year 2023. The dataset includes crucial metrics such as the
journal name, SJR index, quartile ranking, citation counts, and impact factor
(Fister et al., 2016). These metrics were systematically downloaded in CSV
format to ensure compatibility with analysis tools and to facilitate subsequent
processing.
The analysis process was methodically executed in several stages. Initially,
data extraction involved gathering the relevant information from the Scimago
database (Shkulipa, 2020). This was followed by a rigorous data cleaning phase
to address any inconsistencies, duplicates, or errors present in the dataset.
The cleaned data were then organized into a structured database, allowing for
detailed statistical analysis.
Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the key metrics of the
journals. This included calculating mean, median, and range for the SJR indices
to gauge the central tendency and dispersion of journal impact. Furthermore,
frequency distributions were analyzed to determine the number of journals
within each quartile and to identify the concentration of high-impact journals.
Trend analysis was a critical component of the methodology. This phase
involved examining publication trends such as the rise of interdisciplinary
journals, the increasing prominence of open-access publications, and shifts in
thematic focus within the eld of psychology. Visualization tools such as graphs
and tables were utilized to depict these trends clearly.
In addition to descriptive statistics, more advanced statistical analyses
were conducted to uncover signicant patterns and relationships within the
data. Correlation analyses were performed to explore the relationship between
SJR indices and other metrics, such as citation counts and impact factors. This
helped in identifying any signicant associations or anomalies within the
dataset.
Excel was used extensively for data mapping and visualization. After
importing the cleaned data into Excel, various charts and graphs were created
to visually represent the distribution and trends of journals. Scatter plots
were used to analyze the relationship between SJR indices and other metrics,
while heat maps provided a visual representation of the concentration and
geographical distribution of high-impact journals. Pivot tables and data
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 126 - 147
lters in Excel allowed for detailed exploration of the data and facilitated the
generation of customized reports.
The results of the analysis were synthesized into a comprehensive report.
This report includes graphical representations, detailed tables, and discussions
on observed trends and their implications. The ndings offer valuable insights
into the current state of psychology journals, highlighting key trends, the
impact of journals, and the evolving dynamics within the discipline. This
methodological approach ensures a thorough and nuanced understanding of
the psychology journal landscape for the year 2023.
2. Results
In 2023, the vast majority of publications registered in Scimago were journals,
accounting for an overwhelming 99.3% of the total (1367), highlighting the
dominance of journal-based academic dissemination. In contrast, book series
made up only 0.7% (9), and conferences and proceedings represented an
even smaller fraction, just 0.1% (1). This heavy skew toward journals reects
the established preference for peer-reviewed journal articles as the primary
medium for scholarly communication in academia (Table 1).
When examining the SJR best quartile rankings, the distribution was
relatively balanced among the top four quartiles, with 25.3% of publications
falling into Q4, 25.0% in Q3, 24.9% in Q1, and 24.3% in Q2. These gures suggest
that while a large number of journals were in the lower quartiles, a substantial
portion were also of high quality, as indicated by the presence of nearly a
quarter of the publications in Q1. Only 0.5% of the publications did not have a
quartile designation, showing that the vast majority of outlets were ranked and
recognized in terms of their impact and reach.
Geographically, there was a clear concentration of academic output in
Western Europe, which contributed 47.9% of the total publications, followed
by North America with 37.0%. These regions have traditionally been hubs of
scholarly activity, supported by strong research infrastructure and funding. In
contrast, other regions like Eastern Europe (6.5%), Latin America (3.6%), and
the Asiatic Region (2.5%) contributed signicantly less, underscoring ongoing
disparities in global academic production. Africa (0.4%) and the Middle East
(1.2%) had even smaller representations, with a combined output of less than
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 127 - 147
2%, suggesting barriers to research participation and publication in these
regions. The Pacic Region and mixed regions like Africa/Middle East had
minimal contributions, reecting geographic and resource limitations.
In terms of thematic areas, psychology was the most represented eld,
accounting for 20.1% of the total publications. However, interdisciplinary
combinations were also common, with 23.2% of publications covering both
psychology and social sciences. This highlights the growing recognition of the
importance of integrating psychological insights with broader social science
frameworks to better understand human behavior and societal trends. Medicine
and psychology together comprised 16.8% of the publications, pointing to the
close relationship between psychological research and healthcare, particularly
in areas like mental health, patient care, and health behavior.
The remaining publications spanned a wide array of interdisciplinary
combinations, reecting the increasingly collaborative nature of modern
research. Fields such as business, management, and accounting alongside
psychology contributed 2.3%, while smaller intersections like neuroscience
and psychology (1.9%) or arts and humanities with psychology (3.8%) reected
the diverse applications of psychological principles across different domains.
Other notable combinations included medicine, neuroscience, and psychology
(3.1%), medicine, nursing, and psychology (0.4%), and computer science with
psychology (0.4%), underscoring the growing use of technology in psychological
research and practice.
These interdisciplinary combinations demonstrate a broader trend toward
collaboration across elds, driven by the need for comprehensive solutions to
complex global challenges. For example, the integration of psychology with
health professions (1.2%) and social sciences highlights the importance of
psychological perspectives in addressing issues like mental health, education,
and organizational behavior. Similarly, the intersection of business and
psychology (seen in 2.3% of the publications) reects the increasing relevance
of psychological research in understanding consumer behavior, decision-
making, and organizational dynamics.
This comprehensive representation across regions and disciplines
illustrates a dynamic academic landscape, where psychology not only stands as
a major eld but also acts as a bridge between various domains. The signicant
presence of psychology in combination with elds like medicine, neuroscience,
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 128 - 147
social sciences, and business underscores its vital role in addressing diverse
research questions that cut across health, society, and human behavior.
Furthermore, the predominance of publications from Western Europe and
North America points to the need for greater global inclusion and investment in
underrepresented regions to foster a more equitable distribution of academic
knowledge production.
The table presents a comprehensive breakdown of the geographical
distribution of 1,377 publications, highlighting the countries that contributed
to the scholarly output. The United States stands out as the most prolic,
contributing 502 publications, which represents 36% of the total. This positions
the U.S. as the leading country in research productivity within this sample. The
United Kingdom follows closely behind, contributing 360 publications (26%),
making it the second-largest contributor. Together, these two countries account
for more than half of the total publications, underscoring their dominance in
academic output (Figure 1).
European countries play a signicant role in the overall distribution as
well. For instance, the Netherlands (68 publications, 4.9%), Germany (59, 4.3%),
Switzerland (36, 2.6%), and Spain (43, 3.1%) are among the key contributors.
The robust presence of these nations points to a strong research infrastructure
in Western Europe. Notably, Eastern Europe is also represented, with countries
like Poland (23, 1.7%) and Russia (24, 1.7%) making visible contributions.
In addition to these major players, several countries contributed a smaller
number of publications, often accounting for less than 1% of the total. These
include Hungary (n = 7 publications, 0.5%), Italy (n = 32, 2.3%), and France
(n = 37, 2.7%). Latin American nations also feature in the table, with Brazil
contributing 21 publications (1.5%), Colombia with 13 (0.9%), and Mexico with 5
(0.4%). Smaller nations like Chile (n = 5, 0.4%), Uruguay (n = 1, <0.1%), and Peru
(n = 1, <0.1%) reect a more limited academic output in this region.
Countries from other parts of the world also make appearances, albeit
with more modest contributions. For example, Australia (n = 3 publications,
0.2%), India (n = 7, 0.5%), and Japan (n = 5, 0.4%) are notable contributors from
Asia and the Pacic region. China and South Korea each contributed 6 (0.4%)
and 3 (0.2%) publications, respectively. In the Middle East, Turkey is the largest
contributor (10 publications, 0.7%), while Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and
Israel each contributed less than 1%.
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 129 - 147
Several countries, including Ethiopia, Lithuania, and Costa Rica,
contributed just one publication each, representing less than 0.1% of the total
output. Similarly, nations like Finland, Malaysia, and Malta also accounted for
less than 0.1% of the publications. This highlights the vast disparity in research
productivity across regions.
In summary, the table illustrates a clear concentration of scholarly output
in a few key regions, with the United States and the United Kingdom leading
the way. Western Europe, particularly countries like the Netherlands, Germany,
and Switzerland, plays a signicant role, while other regions, including
Latin America, Asia, and Africa, have a more modest presence in this global
distribution of research. Despite this, the contributions from a wide range of
countries reect the growing internationalization of academic research.
Table 1.
Journals, book series, conference and proceedings registered in Scimago 2023.
n (%)
Type
book series 9 (0.7%)
conference and proceedings 1 (0.1%)
journal 1367 (99.3%)
SJR Best Quartile
without quartile 7 (0.5%)
Q1 343 (24.9%)
Q2 335 (24.3%)
Q3 344 (25.0%)
Q4 348 (25.3%)
Region
Africa 5 (0.4%)
Africa/Middle East 2 (0.1%)
Asiatic Region 35 (2.5%)
Eastern Europe 90 (6.5%)
Latin America 50 (3.6%)
Middle East 17 (1.2%)
Northern America 509 (37.0%)
Pacic Region 9 (0.7%)
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 130 - 147
Western Europe 660 (47.9%)
Areas
Psychology 277 (20.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Psychology 52 (3.8%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Psychology 32 (2.3%)
Medicine; Psychology 231 (16.8%)
Neuroscience; Psychology 26 (1.9%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Psychology; Social Sciences 21 (1.5%)
Psychology; Social Sciences 320 (23.2%)
Medicine; Neuroscience; Psychology 43 (3.1%)
Medicine; Psychology; Social Sciences 54 (3.9%)
Arts and Humanities; Computer Science; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Mathematics; Psychology 5 (0.4%)
Arts and Humanities; Mathematics; Medicine; Psychology 2 (0.1%)
Medicine; Nursing; Psychology; Social Sciences 4 (0.3%)
Arts and Humanities; Psychology; Social Sciences 54 (3.9%)
Arts and Humanities; Business, Management and Accounting; Computer Science;
Decision Sciences; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Decision Sciences; Psychology; Social
Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Medicine; Psychology 21 (1.5%)
Arts and Humanities; Business, Management and Accounting; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Health Professions; Psychology 16 (1.2%)
Health Professions; Psychology; Social Sciences 13 (0.9%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance;
Medicine; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Psychology; Social Sciences 6 (0.4%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Business, Management and Accounting;
Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Mathematics; Psychology; Social Sciences 5 (0.4%)
Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 18 (1.3%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Arts and Humanities; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Medicine; Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; Psychology 3 (0.2%)
Arts and Humanities; Environmental Science; Medicine; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Medicine; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Medicine; Psychology 3 (0.2%)
Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Psychology; Social Sciences 5 (0.4%)
Computer Science; Neuroscience; Psychology 4 (0.3%)
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 131 - 147
Business, Management and Accounting; Decision Sciences; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance;
Psychology 4 (0.3%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Medicine; Neuroscience;
Psychology 4 (0.3%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Medicine; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Nursing; Psychology 3 (0.2%)
Engineering; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Computer Science; Engineering; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Medicine; Nursing; Psychology 5 (0.4%)
Computer Science; Medicine; Neuroscience; Psychology 6 (0.4%)
Arts and Humanities; Business, Management and Accounting; Economics,
Econometrics and Finance; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Environmental Science; Psychology 2 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 3 (0.2%)
Decision Sciences; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Medicine; Psychology; Social Sciences 8 (0.6%)
Arts and Humanities; Business, Management and Accounting; Decision Sciences;
Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Medicine; Neuroscience; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Psychology 3 (0.2%)
Arts and Humanities; Computer Science; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Neuroscience; Psychology 5 (0.4%)
Health Professions; Medicine; Psychology 8 (0.6%)
Health Professions; Medicine; Psychology; Social Sciences 4 (0.3%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Engineering; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Psychology; Social Sciences 4 (0.3%)
Health Professions; Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Decision Sciences; Mathematics; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Psychology; Social
Sciences 3 (0.2%)
Computer Science; Engineering; Psychology; Social Sciences 3 (0.2%)
Medicine; Neuroscience; Nursing; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Neuroscience; Psychology 5 (0.4%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance;
Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Medicine; Neuroscience; Psychology; Social
Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Health Professions; Neuroscience; Nursing; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Decision Sciences; Psychology; Social Sciences 3 (0.2%)
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 132 - 147
Arts and Humanities; Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Medicine;
Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Nursing; Psychology; Social Sciences 3 (0.2%)
Computer Science; Health Professions; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Psychology 3 (0.2%)
Decision Sciences; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Immunology and Microbiology; Medicine; Neuroscience; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Health Professions; Medicine;
Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular
Biology; Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Arts and Humanities; Computer Science;
Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Computer Science; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Environmental Science;
Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Computer Science; Neuroscience; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Materials Science; Psychology; Social
Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Earth and Planetary Sciences; Mathematics; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Medicine; Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Computer Science; Decision Sciences; Economics,
Econometrics and Finance; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Decision Sciences; Engineering; Medicine; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Decision Sciences; Mathematics; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Immunology and Microbiology;
Medicine; Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Engineering; Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Health Professions; Medicine;
Neuroscience; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Mathematics; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Health Professions; Medicine; Neuroscience; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Mathematics; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Health Professions; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Computer Science; Psychology; Social
Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Neuroscience; Psychology; Social
Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance;
Neuroscience; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Environmental Science; Materials Science; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 133 - 147
Arts and Humanities; Decision Sciences; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Business, Management and Accounting; Psychology; Social
Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Energy; Engineering; Materials Science; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Health Professions; Multidisciplinary; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Medicine; Neuroscience; Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics;
Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Engineering; Environmental Science; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Health Professions; Medicine; Psychology;
Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Environmental Science; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Health Professions; Medicine;
Multidisciplinary; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Decision Sciences; Medicine; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Health Professions; Mathematics; Medicine; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Psychology; Veterinary 1 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Health Professions; Medicine; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Mathematics; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Health Professions; Medicine; Nursing; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Engineering; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
The map illustrates the global distribution of psychology journals indexed
in Scimago for the year 2023, highlighting signicant contributions from
specic regions. The United States stands out as the most dominant country,
contributing 36% of all indexed psychology journals. This indicates a strong
presence of American academic output in the eld. Following the U.S., the United
Kingdom makes a substantial contribution with 26%, further reinforcing the
inuence of English-speaking countries in psychological research (Figure 1).
In Western Europe, several countries also play a pivotal role. Nations like
the Netherlands (4.9%), Germany (4.3%), Switzerland (2.6%), France (2.7%),
and Spain (3.1%) show moderate levels of contributions. These gures suggest
that Europe, particularly Western Europe, remains a key player in psychology
publications. However, other European countries contribute smaller
percentages, reecting a more concentrated research output in specic nations.
In Latin America, Brazil stands out with 1.5% of the journals, followed by
Colombia with 0.9%, indicating a growing but still limited presence in global
psychology research. Other Latin American countries such as Mexico and Chile
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 134 - 147
have smaller contributions, each around 0.4% and 0.1%, respectively. This
suggests that Latin American representation in psychology publications is still
developing, with room for growth.
Across Asia, countries like India, China, and Japan contribute between 0.4%
and 0.5% of the indexed journals. While these contributions are relatively small
compared to Western countries, they represent an emerging presence of Asian
countries in psychology research. Similarly, Africa shows limited contributions,
with Egypt and South Africa accounting for less than 1% of the indexed journals,
signaling minimal representation from the African continent. In summary, the
map showcases the regional disparity in psychology research publications,
with the United States and United Kingdom dominating the eld, followed by
moderate contributions from Western Europe. Other regions, including Latin
America, Asia, and Africa, show smaller but growing contributions to global
psychology research.
Figure 1.
Percentages of journals indexed in Scimago 2023 (Psychology)
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 135 - 147
The table 2 provides a detailed overview of scientic production and
publication visibility for various countries according to Scimago's criteria for
2023. This includes metrics such as the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) index, the
H-index, the total number of documents published, and citations, among other
relevant indicators.
Firstly, the United States, accounting for 37% of the sample, stands out
with an SJR index of 0.79, an H-index of 60, and an average of 2.35 citations per
document. These metrics indicate a high level of production and visibility in
comparison to other countries. The United States not only leads in the number
of documents published but also shows substantial citation totals, reecting its
signicant inuence and leadership in the global scientic research landscape.
The United Kingdom, representing 26% of the sample, follows with an
SJR index of 0.69 and an H-index of 47. Although slightly lower than the United
States, the United Kingdom remains a major player in scientic publication
and citation. Its relatively high citation rate per document underscores the
quality and impact of its research output, indicating that UK-based research is
frequently referenced and holds considerable academic value.
Switzerland, with a much smaller percentage of 2.6%, has an SJR index of
0.70 and an H-index of 28. While its production and visibility are less prominent
compared to leading countries like the United States and the United Kingdom,
Switzerland's publications still demonstrate a notable impact. The good citation
rate per document suggests that Swiss research contributes signicantly to its
elds of study, albeit on a smaller scale.
In contrast, countries such as Hungary and Germany, with lower shares in
the sample, exhibit signicantly lower SJR and H-index values. Hungary's SJR
index stands at 0.23 with an H-index of 16, while Germany has an SJR index of
0.34 and an H-index of 22. These gures reect lower levels of scientic output
and visibility compared to top-ranking countries. The lower citation rates
suggest that while these countries are contributing to the scientic community,
their impact and recognition are not as pronounced.
Countries with smaller scientic presences, such as Iceland, Malaysia,
and Malta, also show lower SJR and H-index values. Iceland's research output
is limited, with modest citation rates, while Malaysia and Malta exhibit similar
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 136 - 147
trends. Despite their smaller scale, these countries still contribute to their
respective elds, although their impact is comparatively less signicant.
Overall, the table highlights the disparities in scientic production
and impact across different countries. It illustrates how nations with greater
resources and broader collaboration networks tend to achieve higher visibility
and inuence in the global scientic arena. This disparity underscores the role
of institutional support, research funding, and international collaboration in
shaping the global landscape of scientic research and publication.
Table 2.
Impact of the Scimago 2023 criteria in terms of the country.
Characteristic SJR H index Total
Docs.
(2023)
Total
Docs.
(3years)
Total
Refs.
Total
Cites
(3years)
Citable
Docs.
(3years)
Cites
/ Doc.
(2years)
Ref. /
Doc.
%Female Overton SDG
n 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372
United States N =
501 (37%)
0.79
(0.45,
1.29)
60 (32,
102)
44 (24,
83)
127 (75,
219)
2,533
(1,240,
4,974)
359
(139,
853)
119 (69,
213)
2.35
(1.41,
3.51)
56 (46,
65)
56 (47,
64)
0 (0, 1) 10 (4,
21)
United Kingdom
N = 360 (26%)
0.69
(0.41,
1.04)
47 (22,
85)
50 (27,
94)
134 (77,
225)
2,679
(1,168,
5,544)
281 (99,
747)
120 (69,
212)
1.96
(1.21,
3.23)
54 (44,
65)
57 (46,
66)
0 (0, 1) 10 (5,
24)
Switzerland N =
36 (2.6%)
0.70
(0.46,
0.91)
28 (16,
54)
36 (24,
69)
108 (79,
182)
2,048
(1,589,
4,949)
256 (131,
724)
94 (74,
164)
2.20
(1.44,
3.01)
60 (49,
67)
51 (45, 59) 0 (0, 1) 10 (5,
38)
Netherlands N =
67 (4.9%)
0.70
(0.30,
1.09)
42 (14,
89)
62 (21,
124)
131 (53,
322)
3,416
(1,040,
7,584)
281 (46,
1,117)
127 (46,
302)
2.27
(0.86,
3.17)
58 (45,
68)
50 (35,
60)
0 (0, 1) 10 (3,
27)
Hungary N = 7
(0.5%)
0.23
(0.18,
0.37)
16 (12,
22)
21 (16,
30)
55 (44,
90)
1,199
(844,
1,712)
30 (16,
86)
53 (44,
78)
0.80
(0.36,
1.84)
63 (55,
73)
49 (42,
59)
0 (0, 0) 4 (3, 5)
Germany N = 59
(4.3%)
0.34
(0.30,
0.71)
22 (13,
43)
28 (18,
50)
86 (58,
146)
1,108
(714,
1,855)
86 (37,
176)
72 (52,
126)
1.21
(0.40,
1.89)
48 (30,
56)
52 (43,
59)
0 (0, 0) 4 (1, 11)
Spain N = 43
(3.1%)
0.30
(0.21,
0.50)
17 (12,
28)
22 (16,
32)
73 (54,
110)
1,164
(747,
1,490)
88 (70,
158)
72 (50,
106)
0.91
(0.62,
1.62)
51 (41,
58)
57 (44,
64)
0 (0, 0) 8 (5, 12)
Sweden N = 4
(0.3%)
0.52
(0.40,
0.87)
7 (7, 24) 10 (7,
20)
32 (27,
52)
718
(405,
1,214)
48 (38,
172)
32 (27,
52)
1.22
(1.06,
2.31)
60 (48,
68)
54 (42,
56)
0 (0, 0) 3 (2, 4)
Italy N = 32 (2.3%) 0.19
(0.14,
0.31)
12 (6,
17)
16 (8,
33)
74 (56,
114)
845
(411,
1,408)
30 (21,
66)
70 (55,
106)
0.42
(0.18,
0.71)
48 (32,
56)
58 (44,
67)
0 (0, 0) 3 (2, 8)
Canada N = 7
(0.5%)
0.44
(0.19,
0.46)
18 (14,
44)
12 (10,
20)
88 (85,
124)
538
(288,
833)
118 (70,
148)
84 (74,
121)
0.64
(0.43,
1.49)
45 (38,
54)
68 (59,
80)
0 (0, 0) 1 (0, 8)
Egypt N = 2 (0.1%) 0.64
(0.39,
0.88)
23 (16,
30)
34 (22,
45)
94 (70,
118)
1,210
(937,
1,483)
125 (80,
170)
90 (69,
112)
1.41
(0.82,
2.01)
49 (40,
58)
51 (44, 57) 0 (0, 0) 18 (11,
26)
India N = 7 (0.5%) 0.34
(0.29,
0.41)
15 (10,
18)
32 (26,
56)
83 (58,
118)
1,038
(960,
2,301)
80 (56,
179)
78 (52,
95)
0.92
(0.86,
1.27)
38 (37,
46)
44 (39,
57)
0 (0, 0) 11 (8,
20)
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 137 - 147
New Zealand N =
6 (0.4%)
0.60
(0.24,
0.92)
43 (26,
50)
56 (5,
148)
275 (48,
491)
3,230
(422,
5,793)
507 (96,
1,438)
269 (48,
488)
2.04
(0.84,
3.13)
44 (9,
60)
46 (11, 46) 0 (0, 0) 10 (0,
23)
Taiwan N = 2
(0.1%)
0.55
(0.37,
0.73)
17 (12,
22)
38 (37,
39)
95 (86,
104)
2,454
(2,399,
2,510)
230
(146,
313)
95 (86,
104)
2.52
(1.51,
3.54)
65 (62,
68)
43 (39,
47)
0 (0, 0) 18 (17,
20)
France N = 37
(2.7%)
0.14
(0.11,
0.18)
10 (5,
16)
27 (15,
57)
94 (69,
138)
782
(336,
1,458)
15 (6,
42)
85 (64,
131)
0.14
(0.04,
0.44)
26 (7,
44)
53 (36,
61)
0 (0, 0) 3 (0, 6)
Czech Republic N
= 7 (0.5%)
0.19
(0.17,
0.23)
8 (4, 14) 23 (10,
36)
70 (62,
120)
879
(334,
1,644)
40 (30,
52)
70 (58,
116)
0.48
(0.26,
0.73)
36 (29,
42)
29 (20,
52)
0 (0, 0) 7 (2, 12)
Japan N = 5 (0.4%) 0.15
(0.11,
0.23)
19 (14,
21)
14 (7,
32)
66 (44,
78)
537
(413,
1,301)
25 (8,
34)
57 (41,
78)
0.20
(0.09,
0.54)
39 (36,
41)
38 (34,
41)
0 (0, 0) 1 (0, 5)
Australia N = 3
(0.2%)
0.31
(0.25,
0.43)
13 (10,
18)
13 (9,
22)
45 (44,
66)
196 (98,
664)
50 (40,
119)
43 (42,
58)
1.12
(0.78,
1.52)
37 (18,
38)
55 (37,
69)
0 (0, 0) 4 (2, 8)
Singapore N = 3
(0.2%)
0.53
(0.32,
0.53)
11 (6,
20)
44 (34,
50)
67 (53,
96)
2,170
(1,860,
2,446)
114 (60,
246)
62 (50,
93)
1.23
(0.72,
2.14)
49 (49,
57)
51 (47, 51) 0 (0, 0) 10 (8,
16)
Ukraine N = 3
(0.2%)
0.17
(0.17,
0.35)
6 (5, 8) 31 (30,
32)
90 (72,
104)
1,268
(1,065,
1,299)
87 (83,
104)
88 (68,
104)
1.02
(0.86,
2.02)
41 (35,
41)
58 (58,
61)
0 (0, 0) 10 (8,
10)
Austria N = 2
(0.1%)
0.31
(0.21,
0.41)
12 (8,
16)
23 (12,
34)
61 (39,
83)
608
(304,
912)
66 (33,
98)
38 (27,
50)
0.71
(0.36,
1.06)
13 (7,
20)
26 (13,
39)
0 (0, 0) 6 (3, 8)
Brazil N = 21
(1.5%)
0.15
(0.13,
0.19)
11 (6, 17) 18 (5,
35)
111 (92,
128)
620
(143,
1,409)
33 (16,
68)
111 (92,
125)
0.19
(0.07,
0.37)
31 (22,
36)
56 (47,
66)
0 (0, 0) 4 (0, 10)
Turkey N = 10
(0.7%)
0.21
(0.17,
0.25)
7 (5, 11) 33 (27,
42)
103 (65,
128)
1,576
(1,234,
2,344)
54 (37,
136)
100 (63,
128)
0.56
(0.40,
0.84)
45 (40,
60)
57 (48,
60)
0 (0, 0) 7 (5, 15)
Indonesia N = 4
(0.3%)
0.19
(0.16,
0.27)
5 (4, 6) 22 (18,
27)
49 (47,
54)
1,132
(952,
1,344)
43 (35,
65)
49 (47,
54)
1.02
(0.80,
1.33)
50 (44,
56)
43 (37,
45)
0 (0, 0) 6 (6, 7)
Iran N = 5 (0.4%) 0.29
(0.22,
0.30)
10 (7,
10)
59 (32,
60)
108
(107,
154)
1,922
(1,606,
1,971)
124 (96,
179)
102
(100,
153)
0.84
(0.62,
1.49)
33 (32,
37)
47 (31, 49) 0 (0, 0) 16 (13,
22)
China N = 6
(0.4%)
0.19
(0.12,
0.31)
6 (4, 8) 108 (43,
162)
216
(104,
457)
4,008
(1,884,
6,974)
78 (69,
83)
214
(104,
456)
0.45
(0.21,
1.15)
41 (33,
49)
43 (39,
48)
0 (0, 0) 20 (8,
35)
Ireland N = 2
(0.1%)
0.28
(0.19,
0.36)
4 (3, 5) 4 (2, 7) 34 (33,
34)
252
(126,
378)
29 (14,
44)
29 (28,
30)
0.94
(0.47,
1.40)
28 (14,
42)
29 (14,
43)
0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 1)
Finland N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.43
(0.43,
0.43)
14 (14,
14)
24 (24,
24)
50 (50,
50)
1,241
(1,241,
1,241)
135 (135,
135)
47 (47,
47)
2.82
(2.82,
2.82)
52 (52,
52)
45 (45,
45)
0 (0, 0) 5 (5, 5)
Malaysia N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.43
(0.43,
0.43)
17 (17,
17)
12 (12,
12)
61 (61,
61)
733
(733,
733)
151 (151,
151)
61 (61,
61)
2.29
(2.29,
2.29)
61 (61,
61)
58 (58,
58)
0 (0, 0) 4 (4, 4)
Poland N = 23
(1.7%)
0.22
(0.18,
0.30)
11 (8,
12)
31 (23,
36)
84 (68,
98)
1,293
(974,
2,082)
64 (38,
100)
81 (64,
96)
0.66
(0.42,
0.94)
47 (41,
54)
55 (52,
63)
0 (0, 0) 7 (4, 12)
Belgium N = 6
(0.4%)
0.14
(0.12,
0.18)
10 (8,
16)
21 (5,
22)
86 (81,
96)
370 (73,
714)
16 (8,
55)
83 (75,
90)
0.14
(0.06,
0.60)
16 (3,
20)
54 (13,
60)
0 (0, 0) 4 (1, 6)
Colombia N = 13
(0.9%)
0.19
(0.15,
0.28)
13 (7,
18)
23 (11,
29)
89 (72,
100)
1,413
(394,
1,695)
61 (30,
81)
76 (66,
96)
0.43
(0.24,
0.93)
49 (44,
54)
49 (37,
52)
0 (0, 0) 8 (4, 11)
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 138 - 147
Slovakia N = 2
(0.1%)
0.25
(0.19,
0.31)
18 (15,
20)
22 (21,
23)
62 (56,
69)
1,112
(1,079,
1,144)
63 (40,
86)
62 (56,
68)
0.74
(0.55,
0.94)
51 (50,
52)
51 (48,
54)
0 (0, 0) 6 (5, 6)
South Africa N = 4
(0.3%)
0.32
(0.24,
0.37)
13 (8,
21)
22 (14,
29)
103 (86,
113)
1,092
(534,
1,676)
134 (93,
160)
102 (84,
112)
0.95
(0.64,
1.25)
46 (40,
54)
64 (57,
70)
0 (0, 0) 8 (6, 12)
Chile N = 5 (0.4%) 0.25
(0.25,
0.33)
21 (9,
23)
19 (18,
28)
69 (49,
74)
1,061
(567,
1,226)
67 (52,
91)
69 (44,
72)
0.99
(0.96,
1.00)
47 (37,
59)
52 (50,
53)
0 (0, 0) 9 (4, 16)
Serbia N = 4
(0.3%)
0.22
(0.19,
0.26)
11 (5, 17) 22 (21,
29)
68 (61,
87)
1,298
(1,132,
1,526)
64 (32,
92)
68 (61,
85)
0.64
(0.48,
0.76)
51 (45,
57)
65 (60,
70)
0 (0, 0) 8 (5, 12)
Malta N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.34
(0.34,
0.34)
14 (14,
14)
23 (23,
23)
38 (38,
38)
1,020
(1,020,
1,020)
50 (50,
50)
35 (35,
35)
0.79
(0.79,
0.79)
44 (44,
44)
78 (78,
78)
0 (0, 0) 7 (7, 7)
Portugal N = 4
(0.3%)
0.17
(0.15,
0.22)
11 (8,
18)
22 (16,
51)
80 (73,
154)
869
(831,
2,082)
35 (22,
232)
78 (71,
144)
0.50
(0.32,
0.85)
46 (41,
49)
67 (59,
69)
0 (0, 0) 8 (5, 32)
Russian
Federation N = 23
(1.7%)
0.19
(0.17,
0.26)
7 (5, 11) 49 (35,
59)
146 (121,
183)
1,648
(1,262,
1,804)
76 (40,
115)
145 (117,
181)
0.50
(0.34,
0.71)
33 (26,
40)
67 (63,
73)
0 (0, 0) 12 (7,
18)
Romania N = 5
(0.4%)
0.21
(0.19,
0.22)
10 (7,
17)
11 (11,
17)
51 (47,
52)
663
(530,
711)
38 (24,
60)
50 (46,
52)
0.58
(0.48,
0.89)
48 (42,
56)
54 (52,
62)
0 (0, 0) 3 (1, 7)
Mexico N = 5
(0.4%)
0.16
(0.15,
0.21)
12 (5,
20)
37 (0,
39)
64 (33,
104)
374 (0,
1,387)
12 (7,
26)
60 (26,
104)
0.23
(0.12,
0.29)
9 (0, 36) 42 (0, 43) 0 (0, 0) 1 (0, 6)
United Arab
Emirates N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.28
(0.28,
0.28)
39 (39,
39)
22 (22,
22)
60 (60,
60)
1,112
(1,112,
1,112)
86 (86,
86)
57 (57,
57)
1.45
(1.45,
1.45)
51 (51,
51)
49 (49,
49)
0 (0, 0) 5 (5, 5)
Thailand N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.27
(0.27,
0.27)
9 (9, 9) 25 (25,
25)
69 (69,
69)
1,733
(1,733,
1,733)
108
(108,
108)
69 (69,
69)
1.28
(1.28,
1.28)
69 (69,
69)
46 (46,
46)
0 (0, 0) 10 (10,
10)
Greece N = 3
(0.2%)
0.19
(0.17,
0.23)
5 (4, 9) 10 (10,
22)
45 (40,
72)
609
(524,
1,648)
30 (28,
34)
45 (38,
70)
0.33
(0.32,
0.65)
61 (52,
69)
60 (53,
63)
0 (0, 0) 4 (2, 6)
Argentina N = 2
(0.1%)
0.20
(0.17,
0.22)
10 (9,
12)
62 (49,
76)
102 (86,
118)
3,343
(2,634,
4,052)
89 (60,
118)
102 (86,
118)
0.66
(0.52,
0.80)
53 (53,
53)
55 (54, 57) 0 (0, 0) 24 (15,
33)
Denmark N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.22
(0.22,
0.22)
25 (25,
25)
30 (30,
30)
100
(100,
100)
894
(894,
894)
44 (44,
44)
70 (70,
70)
0.54
(0.54,
0.54)
30 (30,
30)
66 (66,
66)
0 (0, 0) 10 (10,
10)
Croatia N = 5
(0.4%)
0.18
(0.13,
0.21)
10 (8,
11)
17 (8,
34)
68 (32,
79)
391
(388,
1,238)
12 (10,
44)
62 (31,
71)
0.18
(0.17,
0.43)
31 (28,
49)
80 (70,
89)
0 (0, 0) 5 (1, 6)
Uruguay N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.21
(0.21,
0.21)
5 (5, 5) 25 (25,
25)
61 (61,
61)
1,189
(1,189,
1,189)
44 (44,
44)
61 (61,
61)
0.75
(0.75,
0.75)
48 (48,
48)
51 (51, 51) 0 (0, 0) 7 (7, 7)
Pakistan N = 2
(0.1%)
0.18
(0.17,
0.19)
8 (8, 9) 42 (41,
42)
126 (124,
129)
1,860
(1,744,
1,977)
90 (70,
110)
126 (124,
128)
0.77
(0.55,
0.98)
45 (42,
47)
60 (50,
71)
0 (0, 0) 17 (15,
19)
Venezuela N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.19
(0.19,
0.19)
5 (5, 5) 18 (18,
18)
57 (57,
57)
946
(946,
946)
44 (44,
44)
56 (56,
56)
0.76
(0.76,
0.76)
53 (53,
53)
48 (48,
48)
0 (0, 0) 5 (5, 5)
Bulgaria N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.19
(0.19,
0.19)
9 (9, 9) 19 (19,
19)
76 (76,
76)
1,025
(1,025,
1,025)
40 (40,
40)
70 (70,
70)
0.50
(0.50,
0.50)
54 (54,
54)
38 (38,
38)
0 (0, 0) 4 (4, 4)
Peru N = 1 (<0.1%) 0.19
(0.19,
0.19)
10 (10,
10)
40 (40,
40)
104
(104,
104)
1,974
(1,974,
1,974)
59 (59,
59)
100
(100,
100)
0.48
(0.48,
0.48)
49 (49,
49)
50 (50,
50)
0 (0, 0) 10 (10,
10)
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 139 - 147
South Korea N = 3
(0.2%)
0.12
(0.12,
0.15)
8 (7, 9) 31 (24,
40)
108 (82,
116)
1,140
(936,
1,226)
10 (10,
31)
108 (82,
114)
0.24
(0.16,
0.34)
41 (32,
41)
47 (46,
49)
0 (0, 0) 5 (3, 12)
Slovenia N = 6
(0.4%)
0.11
(0.10,
0.14)
6 (4, 8) 16 (7,
21)
47 (36,
86)
628
(185,
941)
8 (4, 13) 43 (33,
83)
0.15
(0.04,
0.24)
27 (19,
50)
26 (0, 58) 0 (0, 0) 2 (0, 4)
Cyprus N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.14
(0.14,
0.14)
3 (3, 3) 11 (11,
11)
15 (15,
15)
648
(648,
648)
7 (7, 7) 14 (14,
14)
0.71
(0.71,
0.71)
59 (59,
59)
0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Belarus N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.13
(0.13,
0.13)
4 (4, 4) 41 (41,
41)
175 (175,
175)
1,255
(1,255,
1,255)
37 (37,
37)
175 (175,
175)
0.18
(0.18,
0.18)
31 (31,
31)
60 (60,
60)
0 (0, 0) 11 (11,
11)
Bosnia and
Herzegovina N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.12
(0.12,
0.12)
3 (3, 3) 38 (38,
38)
56 (56,
56)
1,158
(1,158,
1,158)
13 (13,
13)
55 (55,
55)
0.26
(0.26,
0.26)
30 (30,
30)
64 (64,
64)
0 (0, 0) 16 (16,
16)
Costa Rica N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.12
(0.12,
0.12)
2 (2, 2) 13 (13,
13)
18 (18,
18)
699
(699,
699)
8 (8, 8) 18 (18,
18)
0.44
(0.44,
0.44)
54 (54,
54)
53 (53,
53)
0 (0, 0) 4 (4, 4)
Ethiopia N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.11
(0.11,
0.11)
3 (3, 3) 19 (19,
19)
55 (55,
55)
880
(880,
880)
7 (7, 7) 52 (52,
52)
0.08
(0.08,
0.08)
46 (46,
46)
0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 11 (11,
11)
Lithuania N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.11
(0.11,
0.11)
6 (6, 6) 3 (3, 3) 22 (22,
22)
118 (118,
118)
4 (4, 4) 21 (21,
21)
0.19
(0.19,
0.19)
39 (39,
39)
100 (100,
100)
0 (0, 0) 2 (2, 2)
p-value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
q-value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
3. Discussion
The data presented in the table underscores signicant disparities in scientic
production and visibility among different countries. It reveals how factors
such as research infrastructure, funding, and institutional support can greatly
inuence a country's position in the global scientic landscape (Adair & Vohra,
2003; Ansari et al., 2020).
The United States emerges as a dominant force in global scientic
research, with the highest Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) index and H-index
among the countries listed. The substantial volume of publications and high
citation rates per document reect not only a vast output of scientic work but
also a high level of impact and recognition within the international research
community (Ball, 2002). This prominence can be attributed to the extensive
resources available to U.S. institutions, including substantial research funding,
advanced research facilities, and a strong network of academic collaborations
(Carey et al., 2023; Banasik-Jemielniak et al., 2022). The leading position of the
United States indicates its role as a central hub for groundbreaking research
and scholarly inuence (Hanson et al., 2024; Diaz et al., 2021).
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 140 - 147
In comparison, the United Kingdom, while slightly behind the United
States in SJR and H-index metrics, still demonstrates a strong presence in the
scientic community. The UK's research output and citation rates highlight
its signicant contributions to global knowledge (Muthukrishna et al., 2021).
The country's ability to maintain high-quality research despite having fewer
resources compared to the United States reects its effective use of available
resources and its strong academic institutions (Tortosa-Pérez et al., 2020).
The UK's performance illustrates how strategic investment in research and
collaboration can elevate a country's scientic prole (Manjarres et al., 2023).
Switzerland, though having a much smaller share of the global scientic
output, shows a commendable SJR index and H-index relative to its size. This
suggests that Swiss research, while less voluminous, has a considerable impact
in its specialized elds (Fister et al., 2016). The high citation rates per document
point to the quality and relevance of Swiss research, which, despite its smaller
scale, is recognized and valued by the international academic community
(Lewis, 2021). This example highlights that impact and quality of research can
be achieved even with relatively smaller research outputs (Liu & Yang, 2024).
In contrast, countries like Hungary and Germany exhibit lower SJR and
H-index values, reecting less prominence in the global scientic arena. The
lower citation rates suggest that while these countries are active in research,
their work does not achieve the same level of recognition and inuence as
that of leading nations (Yang & Shao, 2024). Factors such as limited research
funding, fewer international collaborations, and less institutional support may
contribute to these lower metrics (Adair & Vohra, 2003). This disparity points
to the challenges faced by countries with fewer resources in achieving high
visibility and impact in the global scientic landscape (Ansari et al., 2020).
Smaller scientic presences, such as Iceland, Malaysia, and Malta, also
show lower SJR and H-index values, indicating their relatively minor role in
global scientic research. The limited research output and citation rates reect
the challenges these countries face in terms of scale and resources. However, it
is important to recognize that these countries still contribute to their respective
elds, and their research can be valuable within specic contexts or regions
(Carey et al., 2023; Banasik-Jemielniak et al., 2022).
Overall, the data underscores the signicant role of institutional
support, research funding, and international collaboration in shaping a
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 141 - 147
country’s scientic output and visibility. Countries with greater resources and
robust research infrastructures tend to achieve higher visibility and impact.
Conversely, countries with fewer resources may struggle to attain similar levels
of recognition, despite their contributions to scientic knowledge (Ball, 2002;
Muthukrishna et al., 2021). Addressing these disparities requires targeted
investment in research infrastructure, support for international collaborations,
and policies aimed at enhancing the visibility and impact of scientic work
across all nations (Fister et al., 2016).
4. Conclusion
The United States stands out as the global leader in scientic research,
with its dominance reected in its high Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) index
and H-index. This leadership is attributed to substantial investments in
research infrastructure, extensive funding, and the development of extensive
collaborative networks. The sheer volume of research output from the U.S. and
the high citation rates of its publications emphasize its central role in advancing
scientic knowledge worldwide. The U.S. research ecosystem benets from
a well-established framework that supports innovation and knowledge
dissemination, reinforcing its position at the forefront of global science.
The United Kingdom, although slightly behind the United States, maintains
a strong position in the global scientic landscape. This strong performance
demonstrates the effective use of resources and the strength of its academic
institutions. Despite its smaller scale compared to the U.S., the high impact of
UK research shows that signicant contributions to scientic knowledge can
be achieved with relatively fewer resources. The UK's success can be attributed
to its strategic approach to research funding, a culture of academic excellence,
and the fostering of international collaborations that enhance the visibility and
impact of its research.
Switzerland exemplies how a smaller nation can achieve signicant
research impact. Despite its limited size, Switzerland’s high SJR index and
H-index indicate that its research, though not as voluminous as that of larger
nations, is highly inuential and well-regarded. This success underscores
that high-impact research can be produced even with limited resources,
highlighting the importance of research quality and strategic focus over sheer
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 142 - 147
volume. Switzerland’s notable scientic contributions illustrate that smaller
countries can exert substantial inuence in their areas of expertise through
dedicated efforts and strategic investments.
On the other hand, countries such as Hungary, Germany, Iceland, Malaysia,
and Malta face challenges in achieving high levels of scientic visibility and impact,
as reected in their lower SJR and H-index values. These challenges are often linked
to limited research funding, fewer opportunities for international collaboration,
and less robust research infrastructures. Addressing these challenges is crucial
for enhancing the scientic proles of these nations. This involves increasing
research support, fostering international partnerships, and building stronger
research institutions to elevate their research output and impact.
The data highlights the critical role that investment in research
infrastructure and international collaboration plays in shaping a country’s
scientic output and global visibility. Nations with substantial resources and
well-developed support systems tend to achieve higher levels of research
recognition and impact. In contrast, countries with fewer resources face greater
obstacles in reaching similar levels of scientic prominence. To bridge these
gaps, it is essential to focus on improving research funding, encouraging
international collaborations, and strengthening institutional support. These
measures can help enhance the research proles of nations with fewer resources
and contribute to a more equitable global scientic landscape.
Addressing the disparities in scientic research output and impact
between nations requires targeted policy interventions. Governments and
research institutions should prioritize increasing research funding, supporting
international collaborative projects, and enhancing institutional capacities.
Implementing these policies will not only support the development of
individual nations' research capabilities but also contribute to a more balanced
and inclusive global scientic community.
Limitations and future research
Despite the insights gained from this study, several limitations must be
acknowledged. First, the research primarily relies on quantitative metrics
such as Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) and H-index to evaluate scientic impact.
While these metrics provide valuable information, they may not fully capture
the nuances of research quality or the broader impact of scientic work. The
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 143 - 147
reliance on these indicators may overlook important factors such as the socio-
economic context of research and the varied contributions of different types of
scientic work.
Additionally, the study's focus on specic countries may limit the
generalizability of the ndings. While the selected countries provide a broad
perspective, there may be signicant variations in research impact and
practices within these nations that are not fully represented in the analysis.
Future research should consider a more comprehensive range of countries and
regions to offer a more nuanced understanding of global research dynamics.
Another limitation is the lack of qualitative analysis of the factors
inuencing research output and impact. Understanding the underlying
causes of disparities in scientic productivity and inuence requires a deeper
exploration of institutional practices, funding mechanisms, and international
collaborations. Incorporating qualitative methods, such as interviews with
researchers and policymakers, could provide richer insights into these
dynamics.
Future research should address these limitations by incorporating a
wider array of indicators and qualitative approaches. Expanding the study to
include a broader range of countries and research metrics will enhance the
understanding of global research disparities. Additionally, examining the
impact of specic policies and institutional practices on research productivity
could provide actionable insights for improving research outcomes across
different contexts.
Ultimately, addressing these limitations and pursuing these avenues
for future research will contribute to a more comprehensive and equitable
assessment of global scientic impact, leading to better-informed strategies for
enhancing research productivity and inuence worldwide.
7. Authors' contribution
AR: Data collection, analysis of results, discussion, nal revision of the article.
VQ: Data collection, discussion and nal revision of the article.
LC: Conceptualization and nal revision of the article.
PM: Discussion and nal revision of the article.
AL: Conceptualization and nal revision of the article.
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 144 - 147
8. Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Universidad Politécnica Salesiana-Ecuador, particularly
to Father Rector Juan Cárdenas Tapia, SDB, Ph.D., for granting access to the
information necessary to complete this study.
References
Adair J. G., Vohra N. (2003). The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations.
Psychology’s unique response to a crisis. The American Psychologist, 58 (1),
15–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.58.1.15
Ansari, K. M., Rahaman, S., & Al-Attas, H. H. (2020). Gauging the quality of
behavioral science journals by using bibliometric indicators. COLLNET
Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 14(1), 135-152. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2020.1819173
Badenes-Sastre, M., & Expósito, F. (2021). Perception and detection of gender
violence, and identication as victims: A bibliometric study. Anales de
Psicología, 37(2), 341. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.434611
Ball P. (2002). Paper trail reveals references go unread by citing authors. Nature,
420 (6916), 594. https://doi.org/10.1038/420594a
Banasik-Jemielniak, N., Jemielniak, D., & Wilamowski, M. (2022). Psychology
and Wikipedia: Measuring Psychology Journals’ Impact by Wikipedia
Citations. Social Science Computer Review, 40(3), 756-774. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0894439321993836
Carey, L. B., Kumar, S., Goyal, K., & Ali, F. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of
the journal of religion and health: Sixty years of publication (1961–
2021). Journal of Religion and Health, 62(1), 8-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10943-022-01704-4
Diaz, A. P., Soares, J. C., Brambilla, P., Young, A. H., & Selvaraj, S. (2021). Journal
Metrics in Psychiatry: What do the rankings tell us?. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 287, 354-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.03.039
Fister I., Fister I., Perc M. (2016). Toward the discovery of citation cartels in
citation networks. Frontiers of Physics, 4(49). https://doi.org/10.3389/
fphy.2016.00049
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 145 - 147
Hanson, M. A., Barreiro, P. G., Crosetto, P., & Brockington, D. (2024). The strain
on scientic publishing. Quantitative Science Studies, 1-29. https://doi.
org/10.1162/qss_a_00327
Kalita, D., Baba, M. S., & Deka, D. (2018). An empirical study on the asymmetric
behavior of a scientometric indicator for journal: A comparative
evaluation of SJR and h-Index. Journal of Information and Knowledge, 128-
140. https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2018/v55i3/122795
Lewis, N. A., Jr. (2021). What counts as good science? How the battle for
methodological legitimacy affects public psychology. American
Psychologist, 76(8), 1323–1333. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000870
Liu, S., & Yang, Y. (2024). Identifying Research Hotspots and Future Development
Trends in Current Psychology: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Past
Decade's Publications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13495. https://doi.
org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.13495
Manjarres, M. T., Duarte, D. P. M., Navarro-Obeid, J., Álvarez, M. L. V., Martinez,
I., Cudris-Torres, L., ... & Bermúdez, V. (2023). A bibliometric analysis and
literature review on emotional skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1040110.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1040110
Mejia, C., Wu, M., Zhang, Y., & Kajikawa, Y. (2021). Exploring topics in bibliometric
research through citation networks and semantic analysis. Frontiers
in Research Metrics and Analytics, 6, 742311. https://doi.org/10.3389/
frma.2021.742311
Muthukrishna, M., Henrich, J., & Slingerland, E. (2021). Psychology as a
historical science. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 717-749. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-psych-082820-111436
Roldan-Valadez, E., Salazar-Ruiz, S. Y., Ibarra-Contreras, R., & Rios, C. (2019).
Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor,
Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised
Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics. Irish Journal of Medical
Science, 188, 939-951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1936-5
Tortosa-Pérez, M., González-Sala, F., Santolaya-Prego de Oliver, J., & Aguilar-
Bustamante, C. (2020). The role of the Association of Psychologists-COP
in the international ranking of Spanish Psychology (1979-2018). Anales de
Psicología, 36(1), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.388691
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 146 - 147
Savage, W. E., & Olejniczak, A. J. (2022). More journal articles and fewer books:
Publication practices in the social sciences in the 2010’s. Plos one, 17(2),
e0263410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263410
Shkulipa, L. (2020). Accounting Journals: Scopus, Web of Science, SCImago. Sciendo.
Szomszor, M., Adams, J., Fry, R., Gebert, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Potter, R. W., &
Rogers, G. (2021). Interpreting bibliometric data. Frontiers in Research
Metrics and Analytics, 5, 628703. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.628703
Yang, Y. H., & Shao, Y. H. (2024). Education journal rankings: a diversity-based
Author Afliation Index assessment methodology. Scientometrics, 129(5),
2677-2700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04979-4
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 147 - 147
Copyright (c) 2025 Andrés Ramírez, Vanessa Quito, Lorena Cañizares, Pedro Muñoz,
Ana Loja.
This text is protected by a Creative Commons 4.0.
You are free to Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format - and Adapt
the document - remix, transform, and build upon the material - for any purpose, including
commercial purposes, provided you comply with the condition of:
Attribution: you must credit the original work appropriately, provide a link to the license, and
indicate if changes have been made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in such a
way as to suggest that you have the licensor's support or receive it for your use of the work.
License Summary - Full License Text
