学术排名与多元化:巴西与新版Qualis的案例

Ian Coelho de Souza Almeida, Rafael Galvão de Almeida, Lucas Resende de Carvalho
{"title":"学术排名与多元化:巴西与新版Qualis的案例","authors":"Ian Coelho de Souza Almeida,&nbsp;Rafael Galvão de Almeida,&nbsp;Lucas Resende de Carvalho","doi":"10.1016/j.econ.2018.03.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The paper approaches the theme of the relatively higher level of pluralism in Brazilian economics, when compared to other countries, from a bibliometric approach. Considering the <em>Qualis</em> as an instrument of great impact in the research of the Brazilian graduate education centers, mainly because of its impact in the CAPES evaluation of the centers, we analyze the abrupt change in the journal ranking that occurred in 2016. Before presenting it, we first focused in understanding the metrics that are part of the <em>Qualis</em>, and how relevant the biases from other indexes than the Impact Factor are. Afterwards, we present a review of the national literature concerning the academic production in economics, showing how some problems of incentives and structure still persist. We, then, present our results: we found out that the increase of journals in the higher strata of the <em>Qualis</em> without a research agenda bias, and with a great inclusion of specialized sub-fields of the discipline. Besides, the impact that this change will cause in the 2017 CAPES’ evaluation cannot be seen as favoring centers by their division in mainstream and non-mainstream. Having this in mind, we argue that the modifications maintain incentives to pluralism, besides correcting many problems in the ranking.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100389,"journal":{"name":"EconomiA","volume":"19 3","pages":"Pages 293-313"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.econ.2018.03.003","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Academic rankings and pluralism: The case of Brazil and the new version of Qualis\",\"authors\":\"Ian Coelho de Souza Almeida,&nbsp;Rafael Galvão de Almeida,&nbsp;Lucas Resende de Carvalho\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.econ.2018.03.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The paper approaches the theme of the relatively higher level of pluralism in Brazilian economics, when compared to other countries, from a bibliometric approach. Considering the <em>Qualis</em> as an instrument of great impact in the research of the Brazilian graduate education centers, mainly because of its impact in the CAPES evaluation of the centers, we analyze the abrupt change in the journal ranking that occurred in 2016. Before presenting it, we first focused in understanding the metrics that are part of the <em>Qualis</em>, and how relevant the biases from other indexes than the Impact Factor are. Afterwards, we present a review of the national literature concerning the academic production in economics, showing how some problems of incentives and structure still persist. We, then, present our results: we found out that the increase of journals in the higher strata of the <em>Qualis</em> without a research agenda bias, and with a great inclusion of specialized sub-fields of the discipline. Besides, the impact that this change will cause in the 2017 CAPES’ evaluation cannot be seen as favoring centers by their division in mainstream and non-mainstream. Having this in mind, we argue that the modifications maintain incentives to pluralism, besides correcting many problems in the ranking.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100389,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EconomiA\",\"volume\":\"19 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 293-313\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.econ.2018.03.003\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EconomiA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1517758018300109\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EconomiA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1517758018300109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

本文从文献计量学的角度探讨了与其他国家相比,巴西经济相对较高水平的多元性。考虑到Qualis是巴西研究生教育中心研究中影响较大的工具,主要是因为它对中心的CAPES评价产生了影响,我们分析了2016年期刊排名发生的突变。在呈现它之前,我们首先专注于理解作为Qualis一部分的指标,以及来自其他指标的偏差与影响因子的相关性。随后,我们对有关经济学学术生产的国家文献进行了回顾,显示了一些激励和结构问题仍然存在。然后,我们展示了我们的结果:我们发现,高水平的期刊增加没有研究议程偏见,并且包含了该学科的大量专业子领域。此外,这一变化对2017年CAPES评价的影响也不能被视为主流与非主流之分对中心的偏袒。考虑到这一点,我们认为,这些修改除了纠正排名中的许多问题外,还保持了对多元化的激励。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Academic rankings and pluralism: The case of Brazil and the new version of Qualis

The paper approaches the theme of the relatively higher level of pluralism in Brazilian economics, when compared to other countries, from a bibliometric approach. Considering the Qualis as an instrument of great impact in the research of the Brazilian graduate education centers, mainly because of its impact in the CAPES evaluation of the centers, we analyze the abrupt change in the journal ranking that occurred in 2016. Before presenting it, we first focused in understanding the metrics that are part of the Qualis, and how relevant the biases from other indexes than the Impact Factor are. Afterwards, we present a review of the national literature concerning the academic production in economics, showing how some problems of incentives and structure still persist. We, then, present our results: we found out that the increase of journals in the higher strata of the Qualis without a research agenda bias, and with a great inclusion of specialized sub-fields of the discipline. Besides, the impact that this change will cause in the 2017 CAPES’ evaluation cannot be seen as favoring centers by their division in mainstream and non-mainstream. Having this in mind, we argue that the modifications maintain incentives to pluralism, besides correcting many problems in the ranking.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信