{"id":8242,"date":"2017-11-09T09:33:05","date_gmt":"2017-11-09T11:33:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.revistahcsm.coc.fiocruz.br\/english\/?p=8242"},"modified":"2017-11-14T13:02:07","modified_gmt":"2017-11-14T15:02:07","slug":"the-evaluation-of-scientific-productivity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/revistahcsm.coc.fiocruz.br\/english\/the-evaluation-of-scientific-productivity\/","title":{"rendered":"The evaluation of scientific productivity"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: right;\">09 November 2017<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">The\u00a0current issue of Hist\u00f3ria, Ci\u00eancias, Sa\u00fade &#8211; Manguinhos (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.scielo.br\/scielo.php?script=sci_issuetoc&amp;pid=0104-597020170003&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">vol.24, no.3, jul.\/set. 2017<\/a>)\u00a0presents an analysis of the evaluation of scientific productivity.<\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_8243\" style=\"width: 210px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1590\/s0104-59702017000300005 \" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-8243\" class=\"wp-image-8243\" src=\"http:\/\/www.revistahcsm.coc.fiocruz.br\/english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/mattedi_spiess.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"200\" height=\"116\" \/><\/a><p id=\"caption-attachment-8243\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Marcos Ant\u00f4nio Mattedi and Maiko Rafael Spiess. <em>Regional\u00a0University of Blumenau,\u00a0<\/em>Brazil.<\/p><\/div>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">Through a historical\u00a0review of the process of evaluation metrics, authors Marcos Ant\u00f4nio Mattedi and Maiko Rafael Spiess, from the <em>University of Blumenau<\/em>, Brazil, argue that\u00a0that this process contains a paradox: The more that metrics become impersonal, the less they are recognized by scientists.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">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.<\/p>\n<p>The authors also argue that a new evaluation agenda must overcome three obstacles engendered by metrification:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Paper-centrism: a scientific article should not be considered the focus of scientific evaluation.<\/li>\n<li>Productivism: a good researcher is not just someone who scores well on existing rankings.<\/li>\n<li>Mimesis: international recognition cannot be considered a benchmark for certifying knowledge.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div class=\"list\"><\/div>\n<p>See the full article:\u00a0Mattedi, Marcos Ant\u00f4nio and Spiess, Maiko Rafael.\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1590\/s0104-59702017000300005\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The evaluation of scientific productivity<\/a>.\u00a0<i>Hist. cienc. saude-Manguinhos<\/i>, Set 2017, vol.24, no.3.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The authors argue that the more metrics become impersonal, the less they are recognized by scientists.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":8244,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[499,151,1055,1054,1057,1056],"class_list":["post-8242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-highlights","tag-altmetrics","tag-bibliometrics","tag-index","tag-metrics","tag-productivity-evaluation","tag-scientific-evaluation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistahcsm.coc.fiocruz.br\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8242","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistahcsm.coc.fiocruz.br\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistahcsm.coc.fiocruz.br\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistahcsm.coc.fiocruz.br\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistahcsm.coc.fiocruz.br\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8242"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/revistahcsm.coc.fiocruz.br\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8242\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8265,"href":"https:\/\/revistahcsm.coc.fiocruz.br\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8242\/revisions\/8265"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistahcsm.coc.fiocruz.br\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8244"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistahcsm.coc.fiocruz.br\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistahcsm.coc.fiocruz.br\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistahcsm.coc.fiocruz.br\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}