La reinterpretación de visibilidad y calidad en las nuevas políticas de evaluación de revistas científicas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes the development of Latin American scientific publications from 1980 to present day in the context of the scientific assessment policies during that period. The analysis leads to the proposal of three eras in the development of Latin American scientific journals, which are analyzed in relation to the creation of regional systems such as Latindex, SciELO, and RedALyC. In the context of the third period –“internationalization”– the new journal evaluation policies of Mexico and Colombia (2016) are further analyzed and inconsistencies with the objectives of the previous periods are identified. In particular, the document analysis highlights how these policies shift the discourse and approach away from those seeking visibility and quality and towards citation as the only valued measure of publications. This change in approach is discussed along with the perceived advances and setbacks from the previous periods. The authors conclude that the scientific community would do well to return to the principles and values established in the first two periods where science and scientific publications were moving towards a regional and cooperative model under the governance of the scientific community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".