Abstract

This paper presents and describes the methodological opportunities offered by bibliometric data to produce indicators of scientific mobility. Large bibliographic datasets of disambiguated authors and their affiliations allow for the possibility of tracking the affiliation changes of scientists. Using the Web of Science as data source, we analyze the distribution of types of mobile scientists for a selection of countries. We explore the possibility of creating profiles of international mobility at the country level, and discuss potential interpretations and caveats. Five countries —Canada, The Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, and the United States- are used as examples. These profiles enable us to characterize these countries in terms of their strongest links with other countries. This type of analysis reveals circulation among and between countries with strong policy implications. 

Abstract

In 2011, the research programmes for Support and accreditation of Severo Ochoa Centers of Excellence and Units of Excellence María de Maeztu were launched for the first time. Since then, these accreditations have become one of the axes of the Spanish scientific policy. In these years, € 186 million have been distributed and 26 centers and 16 units have been accredited. At the bibliometric level, one of the most relevant evaluation criteria is the need for guarantor researchers to have a Normalized Impact of, at least, 1.5. In this work, we critically analyze the origin of this bibliometric indicator in the eighties, the variants that have been proposed and the limitations of its use in this national call. Finally we offer a series of practical recommendations for a more accurate use of the Normalized Impact indicator for evaluative purposes.

Abstract

This essay provides some reflections on the origin of the current scientific evaluation system in Spain, focusing on an analysis of the system of selection and accreditation of university faculty. This system was put in place to prevent academic inbreeding. The thesis that this is mainly a centralized system is rebutted: although accreditation is indeed centralized, faculty selection is carried out by universities themselves. It is argued that we cannot fully trust universities to establish policies that are immune to localism and nepotism if they are not held fully responsible for their actions. The functional imbalance that exists in Spanish university teaching staff is highlighted. Among the activities currently carried out by university professors (teaching, research, knowledge transfer, and management), research is the most highly valued in evaluation programs. More specifically, publications are key to launch and advance careers in the academic environment. The success of the program of sexenios (six-year assessment periods), which serves not only as an incentive for productivity but also as an instrument to establish scientific reputation and academic hierarchy, has contributed to this situation. Other features of the current evaluation system in Spain are the predominance of individual-level evaluation and the use of bibliometric indicators as the final quality values. The Spanish academic evaluation system chose to give preference to individual-level evaluation. Once again, the origin of this approach can be found in the introduction of teacher and researcher productivity salary supplements in 1989. Spanish academics grew up in a culture of individual-level evaluation where they had to obtain their jobs through competitive examinations and were rewarded with bonuses on the basis of personal achievements. Quantitative criteria appeared as the necessary antidotes to curb nepotism. In a country lacking infrastructure and a culture of evaluation, quantitative indicators ensured objectivity and efficiency in the processes of selection and evaluation of publications, and, indirectly, a minimum amount of rigor and relevance of the research itself. The thoughts exposed here are accompanied by suggestions that might help guide the necessary reform of the scientific evaluation system.

Abstract

This letter is a call to the Spanish scientific authorities to abandon current research evaluation policies, which are based on an excessive and indiscriminate use of bibliometric indicators for nearly all areas of scientific activity. This narrow evaluation focus is especially applied to assess the individual performance of researchers. To this end, we first describe the contexts in which the journal impact factor (JIF) and other bibliometric indicators are being used. We then consider the toxic effects of this abuse of indicators. Finally, we outline some significant transformations and initiatives being introduced in various academic fields and regions of the world. These international initiatives offer alternatives to bibliometrics that can improve evaluation processes, and we urge political leaders in Spain to adopt and develop them.

Abstract

This umpteenth statement, although doubtlessly brilliant, arrives late and badly, since it not only insists on a strategy that has not worked but also avoids building the consensus that is necessary in the Spanish-speaking bibliometric community, a community that may not be mustered in this way to the extent that it remains far from a unanimous position. There will be conflicting interests, academic debate, and various publications, but action must finally occur via powerful lobbies, direct interviews with those responsible, and alternative, practical approaches. This letter, beyond its correct evaluations, does not propose real or viable scenarios, and not even short- or medium-term transitions, much less strategies that would be sustainable over time.