Measures that discourage the production of academic books and disregard the collective production of knowledge and its tradition in the SSH

Statement from CLACSO Colombia Centers Regarding the new criteria of Minciencias Colombia for the recognition of books and book chapters resulting from research as products of new knowledge

According to Annex 1 of the National Call for the recognition and measurement of research, technological development or innovation groups and for the recognition of researchers of the National System of Science, Technology and Innovation–SNCTeI, 894 of 2021, which defines that books and book chapters resulting from research will be recognized as products of new knowledge generation only if they have awards or special mentions or are located in quartiles of their major area of ​​knowledge, according to the citations calculated from Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science, it is considered appropriate to point out the following:

Beyond the fact that this measure will have a negative impact on the classification of researchers and research groups, especially in the social sciences and humanities, and abruptly change the criteria on which they had been working with a view to the call for the recognition and measurement of research groups in Colombia, the decision to make books and book chapters resulting from research subject to awards and citations in order to be considered products of new knowledge generation, even those already published before the dissemination of this call, demonstrates a lack of understanding of research logics specific to sciences such as the social sciences and humanities and undermines the work that university presses in the country have been doing.

These considerations stem from the fact that, although this call for proposals does not deny the possibility that books and book chapters resulting from research may eventually be recognized as products of new knowledge generation, subjecting them to criteria beyond their publication discourages the production of this type of output. This leads universities and other entities that manage research resources to not support projects that include these important products, and consequently, researchers may opt only to produce journal articles. While journal articles are recognized for their importance, in many cases they do not offer the same opportunity to raise deeper reflections and critical thinking as books and book chapters, key elements of what should be considered the result of research processes beyond productivist logics.

In this regard, the proposed changes to the definition of book chapters and research books as products of new knowledge generation could have consequences both for the work university presses do in disseminating the knowledge produced by researchers and for how the country's academic community uses the products derived from research activity. Similarly, these changes are noteworthy for placing greater emphasis on citations from users external to the university that endorses the researcher, a situation that contradicts the provisions of the Ministry of National Education regarding the evidence required of professors on how their research experience and the results of such work are integrated into their teaching practices. For these reasons, it is considered that the changes indicated in the measurement model discourage financial investment in publishing by universities, may generate migration of internal production to publishing funds other than those of the universities that finance the projects of researchers and have strong implications in the indicators that are presented in the accreditation processes of the CNA (National Pedagogical University, 2021).

In this context, it is considered essential to continue refining the evaluation processes for books and book chapters resulting from research, so that the scientific dissemination of these products becomes increasingly rigorous. This should lead to improvements in the processes of university presses, but without disregarding the research relevance and their status as products of new knowledge generation for the current call for recognition and measurement of research groups. The reasons for this modification, as well as its purpose for strengthening scientific research in Colombia, are not clearly explained. Furthermore, this measure does not respect the results of previous measurements or the work carried out by researchers based on them. These elements demonstrate that these guidelines run counter to the possibility of strengthening the idea of ​​open science and fostering synergies between academia and civil society.

CLACSO Centers Colombia