A common complaint about the Spanish scientific system is that the way researchers’ work was evaluated was by weight. Incentives such as the six-year terms, which requested a minimum of scientific publications to obtain a salary increase of 125 gross euros per month for full professors and 150 for full professors, evaluated scientific work every six years. The fundamental measure was the number of scientific publications in scientific journals classified by their impact factor. This had led to valuing studies that were sometimes not considered important by other academics, who did not cite them, or works that did not have any social impact. This way of measuring science is also behind the proliferation of special issues in scientific journals, which charge for publishing articles, and made room for irrelevant studies that served to improve the status of the scientist in exchange for public money.
In a first step to begin repairing the broken system, the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation (ANECA) posted on monday the draft of a resolution that aims to change the criteria for evaluating six-year research periods. For the first time, anyone who wants to give their opinion on the initiative or propose changes, will be able to do it until November 19.
On the one hand, the evaluation of the articles will not only be quantitative, in terms of number of articles published and impact of the journal. It will also be necessary to explain the value of the contribution with a narrative. In addition, qualitative aspects will be valued, which were not taken into account before, such as participation in archaeological excavations that have not necessarily been reflected in a publication in that six-year period, or studies or reports with value for society or science.
The new evaluation system will also better value publication in open access repositories. As explained Ángel María Delgado Vázquez, professor of documentation at the Pablo de Olavide University in Seville, although “the idea of valuing repositories is already present in the 2011 Science Law, there was a lack of correspondence between what was read there and reality, because “I evaluated with journals that were not open access.” Isidro Aguillo, from the Institute of Public Goods and Policies of the CSIC, who considers the changes in the system positive, warns of a problem that may arise in this section. In addition to Scopus and Web of Science, the duopoly of article abstract and citation databases used for the evaluation, Dimensions is included, a database linked to Springer Nature, the publisher that publishes the journal. Nature and charges 9,750 euros for the publication of articles. “It would be better to promote magazines that do not have these charges or do not have abusive charges, such as those of university journals or scientific associations,” says Aguillo.
The transition from a relatively simple system such as evaluation by weight to a more complex one, with the inclusion of new evaluation criteria or the incorporation of a narration of one’s own work, will make difficult, at least in the beginning, the task of evaluating thousands of files (in the last call, 17,000 researchers were evaluated). Aguillo believes that “making an adequate narrative will require increased effort on the part of researchers to include the correct clues, and they will have to resort to the help of university libraries or even consulting firms.” This will also increase the work of the evaluation committees, accustomed to other evaluation criteria, which will generate conflicts in interpretation and delays.
After this first contact with the new criteria, which follow the international recommendations reflected in the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and in the agreements and principles of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), starting next year they will begin to be applied in the accreditation to be a university professor.
Delgado Vázquez believes that, although it is a profound and necessary change to break the vicious circle in which the scientific system had fallen, it will be a method that will improve the lives of scientists, free from the pressure of publishing a large number of items that go nowhere. “Less will be published papers, but better, that say meaningful things and have value,” says the documentary filmmaker. In addition, there will be a transition period in which the previous criteria will continue to be taken into account so that the adaptation to the new system is progressive.
You can follow SUBJECT in Facebook, x and instagramor sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
#guardian #Spanish #university #proposes #changing #evaluation #criteria #researchers