Scientific research has, at least, three main purposes: 1) to increase man’s knowledge about the universe and about himself, 2) to provide benefits to society through its contribution to the improvement of the quality of life and the preservation of the environment, and 3) to publish papers so as to fulfill the requirements of the academic careers of researchers.

But, how to know if the goals have been reached? And how to measure to what degree?

The first of the goals would seem to be the most significant one and is perhaps the most difficult one to apprehend. For this reason, and since it is the slowest to become evident, it is the hardest to appraise.

To establish whether there is a social benefit or improvement in the quality of life or of the environment is not easy, but it ought to be observable. Unfortunately, sometimes it is not perceived within a time span that allows due recognition to the responsible researcher or researchers. On the other hand, the assessment of social usefulness is highly complex and frequently acquires a very pronounced political bias.

In turn, the time scale of publication is relatively short and makes possible the evaluation of researchers’ productivity inasmuch as there are adequate instruments to do it. Academic institutions in the First World base the respective evaluations in the measurement of the impact of the publications, established by accounting citations to a given paper or to the journal where it is published. For several decades the latter has been the role of the Institute for Scientific Information, nowadays a commercial enterprise.

However, the indexes of citations or impact resulting from such accounting have been subjected to criticism by many academic communities in developing countries, as they preferably represent, or almost exclusively consider, the so-called mainstream science, that which originates in the First World and is published in the languages of that world.

The evaluation of academic productivity with the purpose of staff classification according to institutional categories is almost always carried out within the institutions. With more or less rigor, variable weights are assigned to the different activities carried out in the areas of research, teaching, administration and extension.

In addition to the academic ladder, parallel recognition systems have been developed in many countries and institutions. Such systems provide salary supplements to researchers without affecting their institutional positions. The first national system in our region was that implemented in Mexico under the name of Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (SNI), followed by similar systems in several countries. In others, as in Argentina, national researcher positions have been established, also with several levels. It has been necessary to establish criteria and scales for the recognition, or not, of publications that are not included in international indexes. As a result of such criteria there are first class journals that provide credits to those who publish in them, and others that do not.

Although the systems that run parallel to institutional positions are, to many, faulty in not providing a stable remuneration and disappear upon retirement of the researcher, they have undoubtedly fulfilled the goal of improving the economic conditions of the members of a hardly stricken academic world. Furthermore, they have led to the establishment of local and regional systems for the evaluation and classification of scientific journals that make it possible for researchers to be considered, respected and rewarded, even though their papers do not appear in mainstream journals.

Without detriment of such local and regional evaluation systems, for the future growth and improvement of our science it is mandatory that the scientific publications make all possible efforts to be incorporated to the mainstream of science, pursuing quality and visibility levels that make them deserve general recognition.

Miguel Laufer, 

Editor, Interciencia