Search

[ES] Enrique Orduña, Doctor en Documentación por la Universitat Politècnica de Valencia, Profesor Titular en el Departamento de Comunicación Audiovisual, Documentación e Historia del Arte, y miembro de la Comisión de evaluación y seguimiento del sistema de acreditación estatal de la ANECA, nos acerca a los nuevos criterios para la evaluación de sexenios. Los puntos que desarrolla a lo largo de la sesión son: características de la evaluación de la actividad científica; corrientes de reforma en la evaluación científica; requisitos generales para la solicitud de sexenios; métricas y fuentes cuantitativas y bibliometría narrativa., [EN] Enrique Orduña, PhD in Documentation from the Universitat Politècnica de Valencia, Professor in the Department of Audiovisual Communication, Documentation and Art History, and member of the Commission for the evaluation and monitoring of the state accreditation system of ANECA, brings us closer to the new criteria for the evaluation of six-year research periods. The main points he develops throughout the session are: characteristics of the evaluation of scientific activity; new current developments in scientific evaluation; general requirements for the six-year research period application; metrics, quantitative sources and narrative bibliometrics.

[ES] Enrique Orduña, Doctor en Documentación por la Universitat Politècnica de Valencia, Profesor Titular en el Departamento de Comunicación Audiovisual, Documentación e Historia del Arte, y miembro de la Comisión de evaluación y seguimiento del sistema de acreditación estatal de la ANECA, nos acerca a los nuevos criterios para la evaluación de sexenios. Los puntos que desarrolla a lo largo de la sesión son: características de la evaluación de la actividad científica; corrientes de reforma en la evaluación científica; requisitos generales para la solicitud de sexenios; métricas y fuentes cuantitativas y bibliometría narrativa., [EN] Enrique Orduña, PhD in Documentation from the Universitat Politècnica de Valencia, Professor in the Department of Audiovisual Communication, Documentation and Art History, and member of the Commission for the evaluation and monitoring of the state accreditation system of ANECA, brings us closer to the new criteria for the evaluation of six-year research periods. The main points he develops throughout the session are: characteristics of the evaluation of scientific activity; new current developments in scientific evaluation; general requirements for the six-year research period application; metrics, quantitative sources and narrative bibliometrics.

[ES] Enrique Orduña, Doctor en Documentación por la Universitat Politècnica de Valencia, Profesor Titular en el Departamento de Comunicación Audiovisual, Documentación e Historia del Arte, y miembro de la Comisión de evaluación y seguimiento del sistema de acreditación estatal de la ANECA, nos acerca a los nuevos criterios para la evaluación de sexenios. Los puntos que desarrolla a lo largo de la sesión son: características de la evaluación de la actividad científica; corrientes de reforma en la evaluación científica; requisitos generales para la solicitud de sexenios; métricas y fuentes cuantitativas y bibliometría narrativa., [EN] Enrique Orduña, PhD in Documentation from the Universitat Politècnica de Valencia, Professor in the Department of Audiovisual Communication, Documentation and Art History, and member of the Commission for the evaluation and monitoring of the state accreditation system of ANECA, brings us closer to the new criteria for the evaluation of six-year research periods. The main points he develops throughout the session are: characteristics of the evaluation of scientific activity; new current developments in scientific evaluation; general requirements for the six-year research period application; metrics, quantitative sources and narrative bibliometrics.

Scientific assessments, such as those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), inform policymakers and the public about the state of scientific evidence and related uncertainties. We studied how experts from different scientific disciplines who were authors of IPCC reports, interpret the uncertainty language recommended in the Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. This IPCC guidance note discusses how to use confidence levels to describe the quality of evidence and scientific agreement, as well likelihood terms to describe the probability intervals associated with climate variables. We find that (1) physical science experts were more familiar with the IPCC guidance note than other experts, and they followed it more often; (2) experts’ confidence levels increased more with perceptions of evidence than with agreement; (3) experts’ estimated probability intervals for climate variables were wider when likelihood terms were presented with “medium confidence” rather than with “high confidence” and when seen in context of IPCC sentences rather than out of context, and were only partly in agreement with the IPCC guidance note. Our findings inform recommendations for communications about scientific evidence, assessments, and related uncertainties.

The transformation (1984-2020) of the scientific assessment of the National System of Researchers (SNI) of Mexico is analyzed here, based on the Agreement of Creation, Regulations, Calls and Specific Evaluation Criteria, with emphasis on the latter, for areas IV. Humanities and Behavioral Sciences and V. Social Sciences. Three evaluation stages are identified: 1) 1984-1998, characterized by a qualitative-subjective evaluation based on the assessment of the academic communities represented by the Evaluation Commissions; 2) 1999-2015, defined by the consolidation of the standardization, classification and quantification of research activity; 3) 2016-2020, characterized by the orientation of research activity toward mainstream science, which in turn might be defined in terms of validation and legitimization. The present analysis addresses the historicity of the sni system to be considered from the perspective of the evaluation mechanisms and their transformation over time, as a performative device that constructs a particular figure of an international researcher based on the globally validated and legitimized concepts of quality and impact through the circulation of scientific output in the mainstream science., En este artículo se analiza la transformación (1984-2020) de la evaluación académica del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (SNI) en México a partir del Acuerdo de Creación, Reglamentos, Convocatorias y Criterios Específicos de Evaluación —con énfasis en estos últimos— de las áreas siguientes: IV. Humanidades y Ciencias de la Conducta y V. Ciencias Sociales. Se identifican tres etapas en la evaluación: 1) 1984-1998, caracterizada por una evaluación cualitativa-subjetiva con base en la valoración de las comunidades académicas representadas por las Comisiones Dictaminadoras; 2) 1999-2015, la cual se distingue por la consolidación de la estandarización, clasificación y cuantificación de la actividad de investigación; 3) 2016-2020, caracterizada por una orientación de la actividad de investigación hacia la ciencia de corriente principal, etapa que puede definirse en términos de validación y legitimación. Este análisis retoma la historicidad del SNI para plantear a éste —desde los mecanismos de evaluación académica y su transformación en el tiempo— como un dispositivo performativo que construye una figura específica de investigador internacional con base en los conceptos de calidad e impacto validados y legitimados a escala global a través de la circulación de la producción científica en la corriente principal de la ciencia.

This article presents the meanings that a group of international experts attribute to altmetrics as instruments of scientific evaluation and components of a future Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Policy in Latin America. A descriptive qualitative methodology is applied and information is collected through semi-structured interviews with researchers from Chile, Argentina, Peru, Colombia, Spain, and the United States; experts in altmetrics; information metrics and/or information policies. The results show that altmetrics strengthen their value when analyzed together with other indicators, since they do not measure the impact or quality of research on their own, but provide novel and relevant data of rapid accumulation, broad disciplinary scope and diverse origin, promoting the use of new channels of scientific communication. Some of the most useful altmetrics indicators are the mentions to public policies, invention patents, and social platforms of high use in the region, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Mendeley; indicators of linkage with the environment, peer review, and other qualitative criteria are also relevant. It is recommended to integrate quantitative and qualitative criteria into Latin American STI policies, which should also be adjusted to local realities and budgets., El presente artículo estudia los significados que la comunidad científica internacional atribuye a las altmetrics como instrumentos de evaluación científica y componentes de una futura Política de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (CTI) en Latinoamérica. Se aplica una metodología cualitativa de tipo descriptiva y se recoge la información mediante entrevistas semiestructuradas realizadas a investigadores de Chile, Argentina, Perú, Colombia, España y Estados Unidos, expertos en altmetría, métricas de información y/o políticas de información. Los resultados arrojan que las altmetrics fortalecen su valor analizándose junto a otros indicadores, ya que no miden por sí solas el impacto o calidad de la investigación, pero aportan noveles y relevantes datos de rápida acumulación, amplio alcance disciplinar y diverso origen, promoviendo el uso de nuevos canales de comunicación científica. Algunos de los indicadores altmétricos más provechosos, son las menciones en políticas públicas, en patentes de invención y en plataformas sociales de alto uso en la región, como Facebook, Twitter y Mendeley; indicadores de vinculación con el entorno, revisión por pares y otros criterios cualitativos también son relevantes. Se recomienda integrar los criterios cuantitativos y cualitativos en las políticas de CTI latinoamericanas, las cuales deben, además, ajustarse a las realidades y presupuestos locales.

Open Science is becoming a new paradigm in scientific research and complex changes are being done. This new way in knowledge development requires a great transformation that will allow science to adapt efficiently and effectively to the urgency of the problems to be solved while ensuring the reproducibility, transparency and reliability of scientific results. This chapter analyzes the impact of this change of model, the challenges to be addressed and the expected benefits.

How are novel energy, technology, and land-use systems strategies for limiting climate change judged to be ‘feasible’? Controversy has arisen around the research community behind integrated assessment modeling (IAM) scenarios used in the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This regards the role played by an unproven component in projected energy systems—a coupling of bioenergy generation with carbon capture and storage techniques (BECCS)—that allows IAMs to achieve ambitious temperature targets since adopted by the Paris Agreement. We engage members of the IAM community and a multidisciplinary range of critical experts to interrogate how the ‘feasibility’ of BECCS—or other novel technologies—is assessed within modeling, and use ‘boundary work’ to show how the kind of expertise—and by extension, the authority—held by the IAM community is being challenged. We find that the competing judgments of BECCS's feasibility, between the IAM community and its critics, reflect and reinforce different understandings of the freedom of scientific inquiry, the mutual influences of science and policy, the shape of science communication, and the necessity of reform. We ask what these claims signal for future activity in this space, and conclude with a call for ‘reflexive’ modeling approaches to bridge perspectives.

De los cambios observados en la comunicación de la ciencia, nuevos soportes; nuevas métricas; y nuevas tareas para un investigador que deberá ser proactivo digital en la difusión y promoción de sus trabajos; de donde emanan tres hipótesis de investigación (H): H1. Los investigadores españoles que publican en revistas de Comunicación indexadas en Scopus son proactivos digitales en redes sociales científicas; H2. Los investigadores con un mayor número de publicaciones son más proactivos digitales en redes sociales científicas; H3. Los investigadores más activos en redes sociales científicas tienen un Índice H más alto. Para la resolución de dichas hipótesis, y de los objetivos específicos relacionados, se emplean una metodología cuantitativa —misma que puede ser replicada con las adaptaciones correspondientes, sin perder de vista, que el eje rector de la misma es la eficacia de ser visible en la Red. De una muestra de 2,257 autores se obtiene, en primer término, la verificación de las tres hipótesis señaladas; y en segundo, conclusiones derivadas de los objetivos específicos planteados. Algunas de esas conclusiones son: a) existen perfiles creados y conservados por incidencia directa de terceros; b) la tendencia al acceso abierto de la producción científica, se mantiene en alza en toda la secuencia temporal estudiada; c) ResearGate es la red de gestión de perfiles que más usuarios registra; d) dividida la muestra por géneros, la diferencia hombre/mujer no es significativa; e) las posibilidades de investigar y publicar son notablemente mayores para los profesionales del sector académico-universitario que para aquellos que provengan de cualquier otro entorno laboral., From all the observed changes in the communication of science, new supports, new metrics and new tasks for a researcher who must be a digitally proactive subject in the diffusion and advancement of their work; three research hypotheses emerge (H): H1: Spanish researchers who publish their articles in indexed communication journals in Scopus, are digitally proactive researchers in scientific social networks; H2: Researchers with a high number of publications are more digitally proactive in scientific social networks; and H3: Active researchers in scientific social networks have a higher H index. To settle such hypotheses and the specific objectives related, a quantitative methodology is employed — the same that could be replicated with the corresponding adaptations, without overlooking, that its guiding principle is the efficiency of its visibility in the network. From a sample of 2.257 authors, it is possible to obtain; first, the verification of the three given hypotheses, and secondly, derived conclusions of the stated specific objectives. Some of the conclusions are: a) there is a direct incidence of third parties in the creation and preservation of profiles; b) the open access tendency of scientific research rose during the time of research; c) ResearchGate is the profile management network that has more registered users; d) when the sample is divided using the variable “gender”, the difference between men and women is not significant; e) the possibilities of researching and publishing are notably higher for professionals in the academic sector than for those who belong to other work sectors.

The study of national academic characteristics is an imperative task for the understanding of national scientific production and the creation of effective science policy. Using a dataset of more than 3.2 million Brazilian curricula, we explore the academic community of PhDs working in Brazil in order to identify characteristics of the whole national network and in the knowledge area level. We used metrics from social network analysis and text mining techniques, as well as the patterns of collaboration between areas and the regional distribution of PhDs. The results show different general characteristics of the PhDs working in each Brazilian state and knowledge area, according to the social and economic characteristics of each of the five Brazilian regions. Different interaction profiles were described, like a less connected network in Linguistics, Letter, and Arts, in which each researcher is related, on average, to less than three other PhDs; on the opposite side, Agricultural Sciences each researcher is related, on average, to more than nine other PhDs of the network. It is clear that besides the capital and one or other major city, the Northeast Region is devoid of PhDs, a situation that is particularly problematic for the most destitute region of Brazil.

[EN] This study aims to know the habits and assessments of researchers in Social Sciences and Humanities of Brazil in relation to scientific publications and especially on academic books. Thus, there are several aspects that are addressed: their publishing habits; their opinions on the book format as a means of communication, and their assessments of academic publishers based on their experience. Other specific issues of the monographs that are addressed are the payment to be published, university publishers, and open access. In this case, the data compilation has been based on a survey sent to Brazilian coordinators of Social Sciences and Humanities research groups (16,542 researchers). The response rate was of 12% (1,977 researchers). The analysis of the answers received stand out the value that these academics grant to the book as a scientific publication and identifies the weaknesses of the Brazilian academic sector: the lack of transparency in editorial processes, financing, and distribution. In certain cases, the prestige of publishers, and their rigor and transparency were positively evaluated., [ES] Este estudio pretende conocer los hábitos y las valoraciones de los investigadores en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades de Brasil en torno a las publicaciones científicas y en especial sobre los libros académicos. Son varios los aspectos que se tratan: sus hábitos de publicación; sus opiniones sobre el formato libro como medio de comunicación, y sus valoraciones sobre las editoriales académicas basadas en su experiencia. Otros asuntos concretos de las monografías que se abordan son el pago por publicar, las editoriales universitarias y el acceso abierto. La investigación se ha basado en un cuestionario remitido a los coordinadores brasileños de los grupos de investigación de las Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades (16.542 investigadores) y obtuvo una tasa de respuesta del 12% (1.977 investigadores). El análisis de las respuestas recibidas destaca el valor que dan estos académicos al libro como publicación científica e identifica las debilidades del sector académico brasileño: falta de transparencia en procesos editoriales, financiación, y distribución. En la determinación del prestigio de las editoriales, los investigadores valoran la calidad de las obras publicadas, su transparencia y su rigor en los procesos editoriales.

This work presents part of the results of a broad survey carried out among researchers of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET, due to its initials in spanish) about the institutional evaluation system of Argentina. More than 1500 answers were received, a number that shows how sensitive the Argentine scientific community is to this subject. This paper highlights an overview of the spheres that are perceived as critical and which require priority treatment in the pursuit of strengthening the system as a whole. The researcher’s point of view is essential to understand the complex dynamics in the current knowledge producing processes. This perspective cannot be disregarded when planning our scientific and technological development for the future. This analysis seeks to contribute to opening new spaces for debate. In view of the opinions surveyed, the different management levels are in a privileged place as the main engines that must be started in order to achieve sustained change., O trabalho apresenta parte dos resultados de um amplo levantamento realizado entre os pesquisadores do Conselho Nacional de Investigações Científicas e Tecnológicas - CONICET - sobre o sistema de avaliação institucional argentino. As respostas obtidas ultrapassam mil e quinhentos casos, demonstrando com isso a sensibilidade do assunto para a nossa comunidade científica. A análise proposta como eixo articulador das expressões dos membros da carreira de pesquisa tentará destacar uma síntese das áreas que são percebidas como críticas e que precisem de um tratamento prioritário em prol do fortalecimento do sistema em conjunto. O olhar do pesquisador é fundamental para entender a dinâmica complexa dos atuais processos de geração de conhecimento. Não se pode prescindir dessa perspectiva ao planejar o nosso desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico para o futuro. A partir desse lugar, a análise procura fazer uma contribuição para a geração de espaços para o debate. À luz das opiniões levantadas, os diversos níveis de gestão estão localizados em um lugar privilegiado como os principais motores que devem ser implementados para obter mudanças sustentáveis., El trabajo presenta parte de los resultados de un amplio relevamiento realizado entre los 189 investigadores del Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) sobre el sistema de evaluación institucional. Las respuestas obtenidas superan el millar y medio de casos, cifra que evidencia la sensibilidad del tema para nuestra comunidad científica. El análisis que se propone pone de relieve una síntesis de aquellos ámbitos que son percibidos como críticos y que requieren un tratamiento prioritario en pos del fortalecimiento del sistema en su conjunto. La mirada del investigador es fundamental para comprender la compleja dinámica de los actuales procesos de generación del conocimiento. No se puede prescindir de esta perspectiva a la hora de planificar nuestro desarrollo científico y tecnológico de cara al futuro. El análisis busca hacer un aporte que contribuya a la generación de espacios para el debate. A la luz de las opiniones relevadas, los distintos niveles de gestión se ubican en un lugar privilegiado como los principales motores que deben ponerse en marcha para lograr cambios sostenidos.

This work presents part of the results of a broad survey carried out among researchers of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET, due to its initials in spanish) about the institutional evaluation system of Argentina. More than 1500 answers were received, a number that shows how sensitive the Argentine scientific community is to this subject. This paper highlights an overview of the spheres that are perceived as critical and which require priority treatment in the pursuit of strengthening the system as a whole. The researcher’s point of view is essential to understand the complex dynamics in the current knowledge producing processes. This perspective cannot be disregarded when planning our scientific and technological development for the future. This analysis seeks to contribute to opening new spaces for debate. In view of the opinions surveyed, the different management levels are in a privileged place as the main engines that must be started in order to achieve sustained change., O trabalho apresenta parte dos resultados de um amplo levantamento realizado entre os pesquisadores do Conselho Nacional de Investigações Científicas e Tecnológicas - CONICET - sobre o sistema de avaliação institucional argentino. As respostas obtidas ultrapassam mil e quinhentos casos, demonstrando com isso a sensibilidade do assunto para a nossa comunidade científica. A análise proposta como eixo articulador das expressões dos membros da carreira de pesquisa tentará destacar uma síntese das áreas que são percebidas como críticas e que precisem de um tratamento prioritário em prol do fortalecimento do sistema em conjunto. O olhar do pesquisador é fundamental para entender a dinâmica complexa dos atuais processos de geração de conhecimento. Não se pode prescindir dessa perspectiva ao planejar o nosso desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico para o futuro. A partir desse lugar, a análise procura fazer uma contribuição para a geração de espaços para o debate. À luz das opiniões levantadas, os diversos níveis de gestão estão localizados em um lugar privilegiado como os principais motores que devem ser implementados para obter mudanças sustentáveis., El trabajo presenta parte de los resultados de un amplio relevamiento realizado entre los 189 investigadores del Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) sobre el sistema de evaluación institucional. Las respuestas obtenidas superan el millar y medio de casos, cifra que evidencia la sensibilidad del tema para nuestra comunidad científica. El análisis que se propone pone de relieve una síntesis de aquellos ámbitos que son percibidos como críticos y que requieren un tratamiento prioritario en pos del fortalecimiento del sistema en su conjunto. La mirada del investigador es fundamental para comprender la compleja dinámica de los actuales procesos de generación del conocimiento. No se puede prescindir de esta perspectiva a la hora de planificar nuestro desarrollo científico y tecnológico de cara al futuro. El análisis busca hacer un aporte que contribuya a la generación de espacios para el debate. A la luz de las opiniones relevadas, los distintos niveles de gestión se ubican en un lugar privilegiado como los principales motores que deben ponerse en marcha para lograr cambios sostenidos.

This work presents part of the results of a broad survey carried out among researchers of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET, due to its initials in spanish) about the institutional evaluation system of Argentina. More than 1500 answers were received, a number that shows how sensitive the Argentine scientific community is to this subject. This paper highlights an overview of the spheres that are perceived as critical and which require priority treatment in the pursuit of strengthening the system as a whole. The researcher’s point of view is essential to understand the complex dynamics in the current knowledge producing processes. This perspective cannot be disregarded when planning our scientific and technological development for the future. This analysis seeks to contribute to opening new spaces for debate. In view of the opinions surveyed, the different management levels are in a privileged place as the main engines that must be started in order to achieve sustained change., O trabalho apresenta parte dos resultados de um amplo levantamento realizado entre os pesquisadores do Conselho Nacional de Investigações Científicas e Tecnológicas - CONICET - sobre o sistema de avaliação institucional argentino. As respostas obtidas ultrapassam mil e quinhentos casos, demonstrando com isso a sensibilidade do assunto para a nossa comunidade científica. A análise proposta como eixo articulador das expressões dos membros da carreira de pesquisa tentará destacar uma síntese das áreas que são percebidas como críticas e que precisem de um tratamento prioritário em prol do fortalecimento do sistema em conjunto. O olhar do pesquisador é fundamental para entender a dinâmica complexa dos atuais processos de geração de conhecimento. Não se pode prescindir dessa perspectiva ao planejar o nosso desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico para o futuro. A partir desse lugar, a análise procura fazer uma contribuição para a geração de espaços para o debate. À luz das opiniões levantadas, os diversos níveis de gestão estão localizados em um lugar privilegiado como os principais motores que devem ser implementados para obter mudanças sustentáveis., El trabajo presenta parte de los resultados de un amplio relevamiento realizado entre los 189 investigadores del Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) sobre el sistema de evaluación institucional. Las respuestas obtenidas superan el millar y medio de casos, cifra que evidencia la sensibilidad del tema para nuestra comunidad científica. El análisis que se propone pone de relieve una síntesis de aquellos ámbitos que son percibidos como críticos y que requieren un tratamiento prioritario en pos del fortalecimiento del sistema en su conjunto. La mirada del investigador es fundamental para comprender la compleja dinámica de los actuales procesos de generación del conocimiento. No se puede prescindir de esta perspectiva a la hora de planificar nuestro desarrollo científico y tecnológico de cara al futuro. El análisis busca hacer un aporte que contribuya a la generación de espacios para el debate. A la luz de las opiniones relevadas, los distintos niveles de gestión se ubican en un lugar privilegiado como los principales motores que deben ponerse en marcha para lograr cambios sostenidos.

This work presents part of the results of a broad survey carried out among researchers of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET, due to its initials in spanish) about the institutional evaluation system of Argentina. More than 1500 answers were received, a number that shows how sensitive the Argentine scientific community is to this subject. This paper highlights an overview of the spheres that are perceived as critical and which require priority treatment in the pursuit of strengthening the system as a whole. The researcher’s point of view is essential to understand the complex dynamics in the current knowledge producing processes. This perspective cannot be disregarded when planning our scientific and technological development for the future. This analysis seeks to contribute to opening new spaces for debate. In view of the opinions surveyed, the different management levels are in a privileged place as the main engines that must be started in order to achieve sustained change., O trabalho apresenta parte dos resultados de um amplo levantamento realizado entre os pesquisadores do Conselho Nacional de Investigações Científicas e Tecnológicas - CONICET - sobre o sistema de avaliação institucional argentino. As respostas obtidas ultrapassam mil e quinhentos casos, demonstrando com isso a sensibilidade do assunto para a nossa comunidade científica. A análise proposta como eixo articulador das expressões dos membros da carreira de pesquisa tentará destacar uma síntese das áreas que são percebidas como críticas e que precisem de um tratamento prioritário em prol do fortalecimento do sistema em conjunto. O olhar do pesquisador é fundamental para entender a dinâmica complexa dos atuais processos de geração de conhecimento. Não se pode prescindir dessa perspectiva ao planejar o nosso desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico para o futuro. A partir desse lugar, a análise procura fazer uma contribuição para a geração de espaços para o debate. À luz das opiniões levantadas, os diversos níveis de gestão estão localizados em um lugar privilegiado como os principais motores que devem ser implementados para obter mudanças sustentáveis., El trabajo presenta parte de los resultados de un amplio relevamiento realizado entre los 189 investigadores del Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) sobre el sistema de evaluación institucional. Las respuestas obtenidas superan el millar y medio de casos, cifra que evidencia la sensibilidad del tema para nuestra comunidad científica. El análisis que se propone pone de relieve una síntesis de aquellos ámbitos que son percibidos como críticos y que requieren un tratamiento prioritario en pos del fortalecimiento del sistema en su conjunto. La mirada del investigador es fundamental para comprender la compleja dinámica de los actuales procesos de generación del conocimiento. No se puede prescindir de esta perspectiva a la hora de planificar nuestro desarrollo científico y tecnológico de cara al futuro. El análisis busca hacer un aporte que contribuya a la generación de espacios para el debate. A la luz de las opiniones relevadas, los distintos niveles de gestión se ubican en un lugar privilegiado como los principales motores que deben ponerse en marcha para lograr cambios sostenidos.

Editorial Volume 8 Issue 2, Editorial del Volumen 8 Número 2

[EN] This article presents various systems for assessing academic books and/or book publishers in several European countries and two in Latin America. It has been structured according to the methodologies used in each system: expert opinion, reviews, holdings in academic libraries, specialization, original selection procedures, citations, and systems integrating different variables. The objective is to offer a panoramic view for evaluators, authors, librarians, and editors to use in decision making. Also included are conclusions about various assessment systems, their potential, and the optimum conditions for their use in practice., [ES] Se presentan varios sistemas de evaluación de libros y/o editoriales científicas en varios países europeos y dos latinoamericanos con las metodologías que aplican: opinión de expertos, reseñas, presencia en bibliotecas académicas, especialización, sistemas de selección de originales, citas y sistemas integradores de variables. Con ello se ofrece una visión panorámica que permitirá a los evaluadores, autores, bibliotecarios y editores contar con información para tomar decisiones. Las conclusiones son útiles para utilizar diferentes sistemas de evaluación, sus potencialidades y las condiciones óptimas de uso en la práctica.

The most used scientific evaluation parameters today are: 1) The impact factor (IF) of scientific journals in which the papers of researchers, and their collaborators, are published and 2) The so-called H-factor which is used to evaluate the work of individual scientists. We explore in detail these particular parameters. Also we briefly discuss alternative forms of assessment in the modern age.

[EN] The internationality of scholarly journals is an important aspect of scientific quality and is considered ever more highly by funders and assessment agencies. But the analysis of different levels of internationality of publications is a complex task, particularly in the Humanities. This paper attempts to make a small contribution toward clarifying some of the methodological difficulties encountered. After a brief review of indicators on journal internationality employed in a number of papers published between 1997 and 2007, the authors selected several that were among the most frequently used and least controversial. The indicators were then applied to Spanish scholarly journals to assess their internationality through the following parameters: internationality of advisory boards, internationality of contributing authors and international visibility. The results obtained in this exercise are presented and in the discussion they are compared with the categorization assigned to the same journals in the ERIH «Initial lists». Possible reasons for the major discrepancies observed are analyzed. The conclusions point to the urgent need to clarify the applied indicators to determine internationality, to expand their number and to assure their objectivity, in order to guarantee the reproducibility of the assessment process and results., [ES] La internacionalidad de las revistas científicas es un elemento de la calidad que cada vez es más considerado por las agencias de evaluación de los méritos científicos. Su análisis y evaluación plantea serias dificultades, especialmente en las Humanidades. Se propone por ello, tras un repaso de los indicadores más utilizados en algunos de los trabajos publicados entre 1997 y 2007, aplicar aquellos que resultaron de utilización más frecuente y fueron menos controvertidos, a un conjunto de revistas científicas españolas de Humanidades editadas por las universidades y por el CSIC. Se analizan en las revistas seleccionadas la composición internacional de los consejos científicos, la internacionalidad de las contribuciones publicadas, y la presencia en bases de datos internacionales. Se aportan los resultados obtenidos por las revistas estudiadas y se inicia la discusión a partir de la comparación de éstos con los obtenidos por las mismas revistas en los listados ERIH, analizando las posibles causas de las discrepancias más destacables observadas. Se concluye con la necesidad de definir mejor y ampliar los indicadores para determinar de manera mas ajustada y objetiva los niveles de internacionalidad de las revistas, tanto en la elaboración de las listas ERIH, como, en general, en la valoración de los niveles de internacionalidad de las revistas de Humanidades, habida cuenta de la complejidad del fenómeno y de la conveniencia de que los procesos de evaluación estén basados en lo posible en mecanismos que puedan ser reproducibles.

The passage of Hurricane Hugo through the eastern Caribbean provided a unique opportunity for multidisciplinary study of (1) the effects of severe storms on tropical coastal and marine ecosystems, and (2) the physical and biological responses of those ecosystems to intense storm-induced changes. In addition to its direct value as basic science, this study can be used to facilitate development of improved coastal and marine resource management capabilities., Funding was provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to the Coastal Research Center of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and the NOAA National Sea Grant College Program Offce, Department of Commerce, under Grant No. NA86-AA-D-90.

The passage of Hurricane Hugo through the eastern Caribbean provided a unique opportunity for multidisciplinary study of (1) the effects of severe storms on tropical coastal and marine ecosystems, and (2) the physical and biological responses of those ecosystems to intense storm-induced changes. In addition to its direct value as basic science, this study can be used to facilitate development of improved coastal and marine resource management capabilities., Funding was provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to the Coastal Research Center of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and the NOAA National Sea Grant College Program Offce, Department of Commerce, under Grant No. NA86-AA-D-90.

The passage of Hurricane Hugo through the eastern Caribbean provided a unique opportunity for multidisciplinary study of (1) the effects of severe storms on tropical coastal and marine ecosystems, and (2) the physical and biological responses of those ecosystems to intense storm-induced changes. In addition to its direct value as basic science, this study can be used to facilitate development of improved coastal and marine resource management capabilities., Funding was provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to the Coastal Research Center of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and the NOAA National Sea Grant College Program Offce, Department of Commerce, under Grant No. NA86-AA-D-90.

There is increasing awareness about the necessity of measuring and assess the production of scientific knowledge to understand the importance of the contributions and the quality of scientific results. Only the course of time has given rise to an implicit consensus about this issue, with general ideas that affect to all the scientific communities, but reached by agreement within each speciality. In this work we address these questions, which will lead us to expose the difficulties of obtaining an efficient indicator of quality by paying attention only to a narrow group of measures. This is especially evident when we examine the distance between knowledge areas, with different research cultures and hence, different methods of assessing the quality of their work. Thus, we will argue that the assessment of the scientific quality must be carried out from an integral point of view by taking into account its multifactorial nature., Cada vez somos más conscientes de que la producción del conocimiento científico ha de ser medida y evaluada para conocer la importancia de las aportaciones realizadas y la calidad de los resultados obtenidos por los investigadores. Solo el curso del tiempo ha dado lugar a un acuerdo implícito sobre esta cuestión, con ideas generales que afectan a toda la comunidad científica, pero consensuadas de forma particular por cada especialidad. En este trabajo abordaremos estas cuestiones, lo que nos llevará a plantear las dificultades de obtener un buen indicador de calidad, atendiendo sólo a un grupo limitado de medidas. Esto es especialmente evidente cuando consideramos la distancia existente entre áreas de conocimiento, que tienen culturas de investigación y, por tanto, de evaluación de la calidad de su trabajo, muy dispares. Por eso plantearemos que la medición de la calidad científica debe abordarse desde un punto de vista integral y considerando su naturaleza multifactorial.