Scientific Coordinator of the SciELO Project, FAP, Fundação de Apoio à Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brasil.
Braz J Med Biol Res. 2011 Aug;44(8):738-47. doi: 10.1590/s0100-879x2011007500081. Epub 2011 Jun 21.
A recent assessment of 4400 postgraduate courses in Brazil by CAPES (a federal government agency dedicated to the improvement of the quality of and research at the postgraduate level) stimulated a large amount of manifestations in the press, scientific journals and scientific congresses. This gigantic effort to classify 16,400 scientific journals in order to provide indicators for assessment proved to be puzzling and methodologically erroneous in terms of gauging the institutions from a metric point of view. A simple algorithm is proposed here to weigh the scientometric indicators that should be considered in the assessment of a scientific institution. I conclude here that the simple gauge of the total number of citations accounts for both the productivity of scientists and the impact of articles. The effort spent in this exercise is relatively small, and the sources of information are fully accessible. As an exercise to estimate the value of the methodology, 12 institutions of physics (10 from Brazil, one from the USA and one from Italy) have been evaluated.
巴西 CAPES（联邦政府机构，致力于提高研究生水平的质量和研究）最近对 4400 个研究生课程进行了评估，这在新闻界、科学期刊和科学大会上引发了大量的反响。为了提供评估指标，对 16400 种科学期刊进行分类的这项巨大努力从计量的角度来看，在衡量机构方面令人困惑且存在方法上的错误。本文提出了一种简单的算法来权衡在评估科学机构时应考虑的科学计量指标。我在这里得出结论，简单地衡量总引用次数既可以衡量科学家的生产力，也可以衡量文章的影响力。这项工作的投入相对较小，信息来源完全可以获取。作为对该方法价值的估计练习，评估了 12 个物理机构（10 个来自巴西，1 个来自美国，1 个来自意大利）。
