Author recognition, impact factor, relevance, and the meaning of publishing

The ability to produce knowledge and to solve problems is considered a necessary condition for real national self-determination and for conducting one's own affairs and fulfilling one's destiny¹. It has been stated that the strengthening of science has additional benefits for every nation and for the world as a whole, because of the various threats we face today²,³. Worldwide, over US$100 billion is invested every year to support biomedical research; this results in an estimated 1 million research publications per year⁴. However, the public funding of research is correlated only modestly with the world's disease burden⁴,⁵.

An efficient system of research should address health problems of importance to populations and the interventions and outcomes considered important by patients and clinicians. Research progress depends on the dissemination of results; journal articles are currently the most effective tool we have to share them. A relevant study should address a substantial clinical or public health question as explicitly as possible and produce findings likely to have an effect on how other researchers think about the question⁶. Over the past few decades, Brazil has enjoyed a significant increase in scientific productivity. Brazilian authorities have made a substantial effort to formally and systematically evaluate our graduate programs, decisively influencing their evolution. These graduate programs have contributed to the education of most of the highly qualified investigators and university lecturers, and to the production of relevant knowledge in this country¹. Remarkably, Brazilian science is concentrated in a small number of institutions. Since these centers are mainly governmental, science is essentially supported by government funds⁷.

Although scientific research is clearly increasing in volume in Brazil, some authors emphasize the need to enhance the conception, design, analysis, and reporting of studies that address questions relevant to our patients and our society⁸,⁹. Context is crucial to deciding which interventions are effective in specific populations because the effect — and therefore the impact — of some interventions could differ according to the setting⁵. Ethnic bias within the leading general medical journals constitutes a problem that subverts efforts to promote equity in global health¹⁰. The tendency of editors to publish research results based on study characteristics rather than quality indicators has been considered a manuscript selection bias¹¹. Some authors have suggested a lower recognition of the scientific merit of research from less advanced countries in spite of the fact that, in many cases, the work was published in English in a prestigious scientific journal¹²,¹³.

Sound articles, particularly those considered to be only of “regional interest” in the areas of tropical medicine and public health, are often not accepted in foreign journals. Many times, extremely important information is not properly disseminated because it is not considered “universal science”⁸.

One of the characteristics of the modern world is a notable increase in competitiveness in all areas. The Brazilian scientific community is highly influenced by the impact factor ratings of the journals in which their work is published⁸. Important funding decisions are frequently based on these estimated impact factors. The impact factor (particularly, the use made of it in many cases) constitutes a limitation or a condition for authors and scientific journals, under which both are obliged to adopt decisions guided, in many cases, more by the rankings than by objective, scientific criteria¹³.

A discrepancy between the scarcity of funds and the need for publications has also been reported. This pressure to publish seems to lead to an exaggerated degree of competitiveness and also propagates a cultural distortion in which scientometrics prevails over knowledge⁷. This scenario may possibly be blurring the desirable development of a socially committed and relevant academic environment.

Increasingly, the quality of research of academics and research institutions is being judged by how frequently their published work is cited by others. Citation rates and H factors are now making or breaking researchers' careers and influencing funding¹⁴. Although this proposal for a more objective assessment of research quality should be aised, the potential for systematic bias still exists¹⁴. Moreover, this policy has had several negative effects with respect to national scientific publications, here and elsewhere. It has also had an influence on researchers' adoption of publication strategies often guided by criteria concerning academic profitability¹³. It is essential that when using citation rates to make decisions about funding, employment, or promotion of researchers, the possible effect of inclusion criteria of the databases used is taken fully into account. Otherwise, the neglected tropical diseases will become even more neglected¹⁴.

Both editors of the main Brazilian medical journals and the National Program for Human Training in High Education (CAPES) representative have recently agreed that valuing Brazilian journals is important for scientific growth and development in Brazil¹⁵.

Good scientists think beyond competition and vanity. The vicious cycle by which Brazilian journals have come to be despised by the main producers of science in Brazil must be broken. While working to improve Brazilian scientific journals, their editorial boards should be aware of the importance of adopting quality patterns that progressively contribute to increasing national and international acceptability and visibility. Furthermore, it is crucial that the leading members of the scientific community steadily adopt the best domestic scientific journals as valid complementary options for publication of relevant research results¹⁶. Finding ways to make national publications more easily accessible remains an important goal for the global “invisible college”, the so-called process of creating networks and collaborating in science¹⁷.

National research and valuation agencies, for their part, should encourage policies that help researchers overcome linguistic barriers to scientific communication and increase the impact of their national journals and of the science generated in their countries. They should also adequately evaluate the scope and implications of the use of bibliometric indicators instead of simply applying them indiscriminately¹³. Additionally, and not least important, government agencies, especially CAPES and the National Council for the Development of Science and Technology (CNPq), should provide support for the adequate management of financial resources and qualitative classification of the journals¹⁵. We need to find mechanisms to ensure that good scientific output from our graduate system, especially in the health sciences, is at least partly published in national journals with good editorial standards, without prejudice about the recognition of its quality and relevance on the part of governmental agencies. Sound and pertinent papers submitted to Brazilian journals by well-qualified graduate programs and senior graduate academic advisors should deserve proper recognition by government agencies according to their relevance and scientific quality¹⁵.

Scientific tradition requires time to mature. Countries like Brazil, where scientific activity is relatively recent, are at risk of compromising their full development and sovereignty if they neglect their scientific independence¹⁸.

Although it is important for a country to have a means of assessing how scientific activity conducted locally compares to that of the rest of the world, neither do all disciplines, and within them specialties, have the same requirements for “internationality”, nor can the quality of the papers published be measured by the same set of parameters. Domestic journals constitute a central component of the establishment of an academic research system with a relative degree of autonomy¹⁶.

Promoting the growth and improvement of Brazilian health science publications is in our hands: members of editorial boards, reviewers, junior and senior scientists, graduate advisors, readers, and members of the Brazilian scientific community selected to serve on the CNPq and CAPES advisory boards. In the current context of medical publishing, we must assume the great responsibility to present an accurate picture of the medical, scientific, and public health research addressing the problems of those living in developing countries or in poverty.

REFERENCES

• ¹
  Helene AF, Xavier GF. Financial support of graduate programs in Brazil: quo vadis? Braz J Med Biol Res 2006; 39:839-849.
• ²
  King DA. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 2004; 430:311-316.
• ³
  Zorzetto R, Razzouk D, Dubugras MTB, Georlin J, Schor N, Guimarães JA, et al. The scientific production in health and biological sciences of the top 20 Brazilian universities. Braz J Med Biol Res 2006; 39:1513-1520.
• ⁴
  Chambers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009; 374:86-89.
• ⁵
  Perel P, Miranda JJ, Ortiz Z, Casas JP. Relation between the global burden of disease and randomized clinical trials conducted in Latin America published in the five leading medical journals. Plos One 2008; 3:e 1696.
• ⁶
  The PLos Medicine Editors. Minimizing mistakes and embracing uncertainty. [Editorial] PLos Medicine 2005; 2: e272.
• ⁷
  de Meis L, Velloso A, Lannes D, Carmo MS, de Meis C. The growing competition in Brazilian science: rites of passage, stress and burnout. Braz J Med Biol Res 2003; 36:1135-1141.
• ⁸
  Coura JR, Willcox LC. Impact factor, scientific production and quality of Brazilian scientific production and quality of Brazilian medical journals. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 2003; 98:293-297.
• ⁹
  Saad ED, Pinheiro CMA, Masson ALS, Borghesi G, Hoff PM, Prisco FE. Increasing out put and low publication rate of Brazilian studies presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meetings. Clinics 2008; 63:293-296.
• ¹⁰
  Horton R. Medical journals: evidence of bias against the diseases of poverty. Lancet 2003; 361:712-713.
• ¹¹
  Yousefi-Nooraie R, Shakiba B, Mortaz-Hejri S. Country development and manuscript selection bias: a review of published studies. BMC Med Res Method 2006; 6:37.
• ¹²
  Meneghini R, Packer AL, Nassi-Calò L. Articles by Latin American authors in prestigious journals have fewer citations. PLos One 2008; 3 (11): e3804.
• ¹³
  González-Alcaide G, Valderrama-Zurián JC, Aleixandre-Benavent R. The impact factor in non-English-speaking countries. Scientometrics 2012; 92: 297-311.
• ¹⁴
  Hunter PR. Biometrics, research quality, and neglected tropical diseases. Lancet 2009; 373:630-631.
• ¹⁵
  Brazilian Editors. Classification of journals in the Qualis system of CAPES - urgent need for changing the criteria! Clinics [Internet]. [Cited 2013 March 31] 2006; 65:0-0. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-59322010000200001&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
  » http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-59322010000200001&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
• ¹⁶
  Vessuri H. Recent strategies for adding value to scientific journals in Latin America. Scientometrics 1995; 34:139-161.
• ¹⁷
  Wagner CS, Wong SK. Unseen science? Representation of BRICS in global science. Scientometrics 2012; 9:101-1013.
• ¹⁸
  Pinto AC, Andrade JB. Fator de impacto de revistas científicas: qual o significado deste parâmetro? Química Nova 1999; 22:448-453.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Mar-Apr 2013

History

• Received
  1 Apr 2013
• Accepted
  10 Apr 2013