Accreditation and six-year periods
This section aims to help faculty members obtain information on the quality indicators of their publications, which are necessary to complete applications for research bonuses and other research endorsements. If you need help, you can contact the Library through this form.
To prepare this document we have used the website as a guide. National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI)
REGULATIONS AND AID:
- Accreditations and Six-Year Periods
- Approved criteria for the evaluation of research activity 2025
- Call for applications for six-year research periods 2025 (BOE 19/12/2025)
- ANECA page with information on the 2025 call for six-year research periods
- Scale for application in the evaluation of research activity by advisory committees - 2025 Call
WHERE TO OBTAIN QUALITY INDICATORS:
The teaching and research staff of the University of La Laguna can obtain indicators in the Research Portal, in the section View indicators of each of their publications. For more information, see This manual.
Below, we show the sources (with an indication of the metrics and dimensions to which they belong) most used in the evaluation of contributions presented in six-year periods and accreditation processes of the teaching and research staff.
To evaluate CONTRIBUTIONS
1. Sources that collect the number of appointments received.
Dimension: citation
Metric: number of appointments.
Evidence of scientific impact.
Self-citations must be excluded.
The context/narrative can highlight citations received from influential authors, citations received in influential publications, citations received in influential sections (methodology, discussion) and/or citations received in the last/first year.
2. Sources that collect the Number of citations received considering the year of publication, the document type and the discipline.
Dimension: citation
Metric: standardized citations
Evidence of scientific impact.
In the context/narrative, the percentage of citations compared to the world average can be highlighted, or other geographical or disciplinary references.
| Dimensions |
| FWCI (Scopus) |
| InCites (product linked to WoS/Clarivate, ULL does not have a subscription) |
3. Sources that collect the position (decile, tercile, quartile) in which a contribution is found in a list of contributions ordered by citations received.
Dimension: citation
Metric: percentile
Evidence of scientific impact
The context/narrative specifies the place of the contribution in the corresponding list, indicating the size of the list and/or the prestige of the source that generates the list.
| Dialnet Metrics |
| Essential Science Indicators |
| InCites (it is a product linked to WoS/Clarivate, the ULL does not have a subscription) |
4. Sources for collecting the number of views, downloads, visits, inclusion in
library catalogs, among others, considering different digital communication platforms.
Dimension: use and reading
Metric: amount of use
Evidence of scientific and/or social impact.
In the context/narrative, one can highlight, for example, the number of different countries and cities from which a contribution has been used.
| Open access publishing platforms. For example: BioMed Central, PLOS Journals, IEEE Access, SpringerOpen, Open Library of Humanities (OLH), PeerJ |
| Repositories, for example: RIULL, ArXiv, BioRxiv, CiteSeerX, Cogprints, PubMed, RePEc, SSRN o Zenodo |
| Scopus |
5. Sources for obtaining the number of mentions received through contributions in non-academic documents by social, cultural, economic, or political agents. For example: regulatory documents, patents, political or public policy implementation reports, media news, clinical guidelines, etc.
Dimension: Social influence or adoption.
Metric: number of mentions.
Evidence of social impact
Highlight within the context/narrative the benefits and impact it has generated outside of academia. Emphasize the relevance and reach of the organizations that utilize the contribution.
| Alternative metric aggregators (e.g., PlumX-through Scopus) |
| Direct sources from non-academic agents, for example Overton o The Lens |
6. Sources for obtaining the number of social interactions received for the contribution from media outlets or social media platforms.
Dimension: social visibility.
Metric: number of interactions (mentions, favorites, replies…)
Evidence of social impact
In the context/narrative section, provide a detailed description of the audience with whom the work has been presented.
interacted, highlighting geographical, linguistic variety and influence.
| Alternative metric aggregators (e.g., Altmetric.com) |
| Academic social platforms (such as ResearchGates, Academia.edu o Mendeley) |
| Media websites |
| Wikipedia |
7.- Sources that store a machine-readable copy of the contribution. The contribution may be collected on one or more open access platforms.
Dimension: deposit in open access repository.
Metric: open access deposit of the contribution.
Open science evidence
In the context/narrative, highlight the relevance of the platform, the usage metrics of the contribution on each platform and/or the linking of the contribution with other contributions (publications, datasets, computer programs, machine learning models).
| Institutional repositories, for example, RIULL |
| Thematic repositories, for example: ArXiv, BioRxiv, CiteSeerX, Cogprints, PubMed, RePEc, SSRN |
| General-purpose repositories, for example Zenodo |
| Open access publishing platforms (diamond model, etc.) For example, in DOAJ, the “Without fees” magazines or use the UNAM Diamond magazine search engine |
8.- Sources that include non-academic authorship or contributions from non-academics explicitly recognized in scientific publications.
Dimension: science open to society.
Metric: number of non-academic participants or social groups involved.
Open science evidence
In the context/narrative, highlight the diversity of the social groups or non-academic institutions involved.
To evaluate the MEDIUM OF DISSEMINATION
1. Sources that show the visibility of a media outlet based on the scientific impact of its individual publications.
Dimension: scientific impact of the medium
Metric: impact
Evidence of Scientific Impact
In the context/narrative, indicate the position (decile, tertile, quartile) of the medium in a list of media ordered by impact
| CiteScore in Scopus-sources (Scopus) |
| IDR (Dialnet Metrics) |
| Journal Citation Indicator-JCI (JCR-WOS) |
| Journal Impact Factor-JIF (JCR-WOS) |
| Scimago Journal Rank (Scopus) |
2. Sources that reflect the obtaining recognition by the media outlet to quality of their work process.
Dimension: quality in environmental management
Metrics: a seal of editorial quality.
Evidence of Scientific Impact
In the context/narrative, highlight the relevance of the awards or recognitions received by the media outlet over time
3.- Sources indicating the percentage of people affiliated with foreign institutions
Dimension: quality in environmental management
Metric: quality in environmental management.
Evidence of Scientific Impact
In the context/narrative, the relevance of the people belonging to an editorial committee can be highlighted.
| The media outlet itself |
| Product with information from media outlets |
To access the databases Those who do not have free access must identify themselves with their ULL username and password.
- Contact information
- Camino La Hornera, s/n. General and Humanities Library. P.O. Box 456. Postal Code 38200. San Cristóbal de La Laguna. Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
-
- (+34) 922 31 78 30
- bull@ull.es
- From 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.
- Service Charter
- Satisfaction survey
- Procedure for complaints, suggestions and compliments