09 November 2017
The current issue of História, Ciências, Saúde – Manguinhos (vol.24, no.3, jul./set. 2017) presents an analysis of the evaluation of scientific productivity.
Marcos Antônio Mattedi and Maiko Rafael Spiess. Regional University of Blumenau, Brazil.
Through a historical review of the process of evaluation metrics, authors Marcos Antônio Mattedi and Maiko Rafael Spiess, from the University of Blumenau, Brazil, argue that that this process contains a paradox: The more that metrics become impersonal, the less they are recognized by scientists.
This study is divided into five sections: contextualization of the scientific evaluation; a description of the main stages in the institutionalization of metrics; an overview of the development of the main evaluation indexes; some examples of the application of these indexes; and recommendations for a new evaluation agenda.
The authors also argue that a new evaluation agenda must overcome three obstacles engendered by metrification:
- Paper-centrism: a scientific article should not be considered the focus of scientific evaluation.
- Productivism: a good researcher is not just someone who scores well on existing rankings.
- Mimesis: international recognition cannot be considered a benchmark for certifying knowledge.
See the full article: Mattedi, Marcos Antônio and Spiess, Maiko Rafael. The evaluation of scientific productivity. Hist. cienc. saude-Manguinhos, Set 2017, vol.24, no.3.
