Association between Research Evaluation Systems and Publication Patterns in Heath Sciences in Brazil

• Autor(a) principal: Caballero Rivero, Alejandro
• Data de Publicação: 2023
• Outros Autores: Macedo dos Santos, Raimundo Nonato, Trzesniak, Piotr
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Informação & Informação
• Texto Completo: https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/informacao/article/view/47178
• topic: Research evaluation systems; Publication patterns; Health Sciences; Brazil; Sistemas de evaluación de la investigación; Patrones de publicación; Ciencias de la Salud; Brasil; Sistemas de avaliação da pesquisa; Padrões de publicação; Ciências da Saúde; Brasil

Objective: A bibliometric study of the scientific production of Health Sciences in Brazil is carried out to determine whether the publication patterns of researchers evaluated by the two main funding agencies of Brazil, the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, differ from those of researchers who are not evaluated. The analysis is complemented by Richard Whitley's theoretical framework on “weak” and “strong” evaluation systems and the mechanisms that influence knowledge production. Methology: Data on scientific production were collected from the Lattes platform. A stratified random sample formed by homogeneous groups of researchers, considering whether they are evaluated by these agencies was used. Results: Results show that scientific production of researchers with productivity grants and being permanent professors of graduate programs is in line with the evaluation criteria used by the two agencies, while those of researchers who do not have productivity grants and are not permanent professors are not lined with these criteria. Important differences are verified between the publication patterns of these two groups, specifically on the used language, journal’s country, journal’s indexing in the Web of Science, journal’s Impact Factor on the Journal Citation Reports, and journal’s classification in the upper strata of Qualis Periódicos. Conclusions: Results suggest that these differences could be based on the fact that evaluated researchers are directly influenced by the mechanisms of resource allocation and reputation that underlie the evaluation systems used by the two agencies, while not evaluated researchers do not feel this influence directly.