Advertisement

The national system of researchers in Mexico: implications of publication incentives for researchers in social sciences

  • Vanessa Sandoval-RomeroEmail author
  • Vincent Larivière
Article

Abstract

This article explores the effects of the Mexican National System of Researchers (SNI) on social science researchers’ scientific output and publication practices. SNI operates as a system of pecuniary bonuses for scientific activity; these are granted monthly and calculated according to a combination of an ex-post peer review with bibliometric assessment of researchers based on five criteria: scientific output, participation in academic activities, academic initiatives, infrastructure and popularization of science. The admitted members are classified in a ranking system in one of the four categories: SNI III (seniors), SNI II (established), SNI I (early-stage), and candidates (young researchers). The SNI appointment provides the recognition of national investigator that constitutes the most prestigious reward among researchers in the country. The distribution of the 2977 active members in 2013 in the area of social sciences shows a greater concentration of seniors and established researchers within the federal public higher education institutions, while early-stage and young researchers were mostly affiliated with states public universities. Our analysis focuses on general characteristics of SNI members: affiliations, gender, country of graduation, and scientific output. Also, we identify their career pathway through revocation, promotion and retention rates for each category: SNI III, SNI II, SNI I, and Candidates.

Keywords

Research assessment Science policy Social sciences Scientific career Mexico 

Notes

Funding

Funding was provided by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Chaire de recherche du Canada sur les transformations de la communication savante (Grant No. Postdoctoral scholarship) and CIRST (Grant No. Postdoctoral scholarship).

References

  1. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias. (2013). Atlas de la Ciencia Mexicana. Mexico City: National System of Researchers.Google Scholar
  2. Åkerlind, G. S. (2005). Postdoctoral researchers: roles, functions and career prospects. Higher Education Research and Development,24(1), 21–40.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436052000318550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alonso, W. J., & Fernández-Juricic, E. (2002). Regional network raises profile of local journals. Nature,415, 471.  https://doi.org/10.1038/415471c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archambault, É., & Larivière, V. (2010). World social science report 2009/2010. In U. P. E. I. S. S. Council (Ed.) (pp. 251–254). Paris.Google Scholar
  5. Archambault, É., & Vignola-Gagné, É. (2004). L’utilisation de la bibliométrie dans les sciences sociales et les humanités (Préparé pour le Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada (CRSH)). Montréal: Science-Metrix.Google Scholar
  6. Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics,68(3), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Área de Política Social del Senado de la República. (2002). La educación superior privada en México: Una aproximación. Perfiles Educativos,24, 128–146.Google Scholar
  8. Becerril-García, A., & Aguado-Lopez, E. (2018). The end of a centralized open access project and the beginning of a community-based sustainable infrastructure for Latin America: redalyc.org after fifteen years the open access ecosystem in Latin America. In L. Chan & P. Mounier (Eds.), ELPUB. Toronto: ELPUB.Google Scholar
  9. Becerril-García, A., Aguado-López, E., Batthyány, K., Melero, R., Beigel, F., Vélez Cuartas, G., et al. (2019). AmeliCA: Una estructura sostenible e impulsada por la comunidad para el Conocimiento Abierto en América Latina y el Sur Global.Google Scholar
  10. Bensusán, G. (Ed.). (2013). Estudio sociológico sobre las perspectivas de jubilación de los miembros del SNI. México: Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, AC.Google Scholar
  11. Buendía Espinoza, A., García-Salord, S., Grediaga, R., Landesmann, M., Rodríguez-Gómez, R., Rondero, N., et al. (2017). Queríamos evaluar y terminamos contando: alternativas para la evaluación del trabajo académico. Perfiles Educativos,XXXIX(157), 200–218.Google Scholar
  12. Cámara de Diputados. (2002). Ley de Ciencia y Tecnología. In H. C. D. I. Unión (Ed.). México: Diario Oficial de la Federación.Google Scholar
  13. Casas-Guerrero, R., & Luna, M. (Eds.). (1997). Gobierno, Academia y Empresas en México: Hacia una Nueva Configuración de Relaciones. México: Plaza y Vladés.Google Scholar
  14. Chubin, D. E., & Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless science: Peer review and U. S. science policy. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  15. CONACYT. (2016). Informe General de la Ciencia, la Tecnologia y la Innovacion (pp. 348). México: Gobierno de la República.  Google Scholar
  16. CONACYT-SNI. (2017). Reglamento del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores México. Mexico: Diario Oficial de la Federación.Google Scholar
  17. CONACYT-SNI. (2018). Criterios Específicos Área V—Ciencias Sociales. In D. O. D. I. Federación (Ed.). México.Google Scholar
  18. de Castro Moreira, I. (2003). Brazilian science at a crossroads. Science.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.301.5630.141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Moya-Anegón, F., & Herrero-Solana, V. (1999). Science in America latina: A comparison of bibliometric and scientific-technical indicators. Scientometrics,46(2), 299–320.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02464780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Didou-Aupetit, S., & Gérard, É. (2010). El Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, veinticinco años después. La comunidad científica, entre distinción e internacionalización. México: ANUIES.Google Scholar
  21. Didou-Aupetit, S., & Gérard, E. (2011). El Sistema Nacional de Investigadores en 2009.¿ Un vector para la internacionalización de las élites científicas? Perfiles Educativos,XXXIII(32), 29–47.Google Scholar
  22. DOF. (1984). Acuerdo por el cual se estable la creación del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores. Mexico: Diario Oficial de la Federación.Google Scholar
  23. Dubois, M. (1999). Introduction à la sociologie des sciences. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  24. Fernández-Zayas, J. L. (Ed.). (2005). Una reflexión sobre el Sistema Nacional de Investigadores a 20 años de su creación. México: FCCyT/AMC.Google Scholar
  25. Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., & Stephan, P. (2011). Changing incentives to publish. Science Policy, 333(6043), 702–703.Google Scholar
  26. Galaz Fontes, J. F., & Viloria Hernández, E. (2014). La carrera del académico mexicano a principios del siglo XXI: Una exploración con base en la encuesta RPAM 2007–2008. Revista de la Educación Superior,43, 37–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Galaz, J. F., Padilla, L. E., Gil, M., & Sevilla, J. J. (2008). Los dilemas del profesorado en la educación superior mexicana. Calidad en la Educación.  https://doi.org/10.31619/caledu.n28.202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Galaz-Fontes, J. F., & Gil-Antón, M. (2013). The impact of merit-pay systems on the work and attitudes of Mexican academics. Higher Education,66(3), 357–374.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9610-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Galaz-Fontes, J. F., Sevilla-García, J. J., Padilla-González, L. E., Arcos-Vega, J. L., Gil-Antón, M., & Martínez-Stack, J. (2011). México: A portrait of a managed profession. In W. Locke, W. K. Cummings, & D. Fisher (Eds.), Changing governance and management in higher education: The perspectives of the academy (pp. 57–81). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gamba, G. (2012). Reflexiones sobre el proceso de evaluación del investigador. (30 de Mayo de 2012). La Crónica de Hoy.Google Scholar
  31. García-Bátiz, M. L. (2015). Reflexiones sobre los retos para ingreso, permanencia y promoción en el SNI de las investigadoras. In A. Mendieta-Ramírez (Ed.), ¿Legitimidad o Reconocimiento? Las investigadoras del SNI. Retos y Propuestas (pp. 29–35). PUebla: La Biblioteca, S.A. de C.V.Google Scholar
  32. Gaudin, J.-P., & Livet, P. (2008). Processus d’évaluation des sciences sociales: acteurs et valeurs. Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales,XLVI(141), 7–10.  https://doi.org/10.4000/ress.143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gil Antón, M., & Contreras Gómez, L. E. (2017). El Sistema Nacional de Investigadores: ¿ espejo y modelo? Revista de la Educación Superior,46, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gingras, Y. (2013). Sociologie des sciences (Que sais-je?). Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  35. Gingras, Y. (2014). Les dérives de l’évaluation de la recherche. Du bon usage de la bibliométire. France: Raisons d’agir.Google Scholar
  36. González, J. (2009). El Sistema Nacional de Investigadores y su productividad docente. (18 de marzo de 2009). La Crónica Hoy.Google Scholar
  37. Gonzalez-Brambila, C., & Veloso, F. M. (2007). The determinants of research output and impact: A study of Mexican researchers. Research Policy,36(7), 1035–1051.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: Possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance: Governance of research organizations (pp. 121–139). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics,44(2), 193–215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02457380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social sciences. In H. Moed (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  41. Hicks, D. (2013). One size doesn’t fit all: On the co-evolution of national evaluation systems and social science publishing. Confero,1(1), 67–90.  https://doi.org/10.3384/confero13v1130117.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Howitt, P. (2000). The economics of science and the future of Universities. The 16th Timlin Lecture, University of Saskatchewan.  Google Scholar
  43. Kosmopoulos, C., & Pumain, D. (2008). Révolution numérique et évaluation bibliométrique dans les sciences humaines et sociales. Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales,XLVI(141), 73–86.  https://doi.org/10.4000/ress.151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Laclette, J. P., & Zúñiga-Bello, P. (2008). Evaluación de impacto del programa de formación de científicos y tecnológos 1997–2006 (p. 240). México: CONACYT/FCCYT.Google Scholar
  45. Laclette, J. P., & Zúñiga-Bello, P. (Eds.). (2010). El debate de la ciencia en México. Múltiples visiones, un mismo compromiso. México: Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, AC.Google Scholar
  46. Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Larivière, V. (2015). Bibliométrie. In J. Prud’homme, P. Doray, & F. Bouchard (Eds.), Sciences, technologies et sociétés de A à Z. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
  48. Larivière, V., Desrochers, N., Macaluso, B., Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science,46(3), 417–435.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716650046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. (2013). Global gender disparities in science. Nature,504, 211–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Leite, P., Mugnaini, R., & Leta, J. (2011). A new indicator for international visibility: Exploring Brazilian scientific community. Scientometrics,88(1), 311–319.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0379-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Llyod, M. (2018). El sector de la investigación en México: Entre privilegios, tensiones y jerarquías. Revista de la Educación Superior,47(185), 1–31.Google Scholar
  52. López-Hernández, A. (2009). El emeritazgo del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores. (11 de marzo de 2009). La Crónica Hoy.Google Scholar
  53. Martin, B. R. (2013). Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy,42(5), 1005–1014.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics,106(1), 213–228.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Neff, M. W. (2017). Publication incentives undermine the utility of science: Ecological research in Mexico. Science and Public Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nerad, M., & Cerny, J. (1999). Postdoctoral patterns, career advancement, and problems. Science,285(5433), 1533–1535.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.285.5433.1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Norman, I., & Griffiths, P. (2008). Duplicate publication and ‘salami slicing’: Ethical issues and practical solutions. International Journal of Nursing Studies,45(9), 1257–1260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Olivier, J.-P. (2011). L’évaluation de la qualité des recherches qualitatives. In P. Servais (Ed.), L’évaluation de la recherche en sciences humaines et sociales (pp. 231–241). Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia Bruylant.Google Scholar
  60. Perc, M. (2014). The Matthew effect in empirical data. Journal of The Royal Society Interface,11(98), 20140378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pinto, R., Galaz Fontes, J. F., & Padilla González, L. E. (2012). Estudios nacionales sobre académicos en México: Una comparación metodológica. Revista de la Educación Superior,41, 9–49.Google Scholar
  62. Pontille, D. (2004). La signature scientifique: Une sociologie pragmatique de l’attribution. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
  63. Pontille, D., & Torny, D. (2010). The controversial policies of journal ratings: Evaluating social sciences and humanities. Research Evaluation,19(5), 347–360.  https://doi.org/10.3152/095820210x12809191250889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pontille, D., & Torny, D. (2013). La manufacture de l’évaluation scientifique: Algorithmes, jeux de données, outils bibliométriques. Réseaux.  https://doi.org/10.3917/res.177.0025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Quan, W., Chen, B., & Shu, F. (2017). Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999–2016). Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 486–502.  https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rodríguez Miramontes, J., González Brambila, C. N., & Maqueda Rodríguez, G. (2018). El Sistema Nacional de Investigadores en México: 21 años de producción científica en las instituciones de educación superior (1991–2011). 2018, 33.  https://doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2017.nesp1.57890.
  67. Sandoval-Romero, V., Mongeon, P., & Larivière, V. (2018). Science, technology and innovation policies in Latin-America: fifteen years of scientific output, impact and international collaboration. In Paper presented at the 23th conference on science and technology indicators (STI 2018). Leiden.Google Scholar
  68. Schmitt, J. (2018). Paywall. The Business of Scholarship (65 min). The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  69. SciELO. (2018). Scientific Electronic Library Online. About SciELO. São Paulo, Brasil: SciELO – Scientific Electronic Library Online.Google Scholar
  70. Shu, F., Julien, C.-A., & Larivière, V. (2019). Does the web of science accurately represent Chinese scientific performance? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stephan, P. E. (2008). Science and the university: Challenges for future research. CESifo Economic Studies, 54(2), 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stephan, P., & Ma, J. (2005). The increased frequency and duration of the postdoctorate career stage. The American Economic Review,95(2), 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2018). Meassuring research. What everyone needs to know. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Vasen, F. (2011). Los sentidos de la relevancia en la política científica. CTS,19(7), 11–46.Google Scholar
  75. Vasen, F. (2018). La ‘Torre de Marfil’ como Apuesta Segura: Políticas Científicas y Evaluación Académica en México. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas,26(96), 24.Google Scholar
  76. Vasen, F., & Lujano, I. (2017). National systems of classification of academic journals in Latin America: Recent trends and implications for academic evaluation in the social sciences. Revista Mexicana De Ciencias Politicas Y Sociales,62(231), 199–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vinck, D. (1995). Sociologie des sciences. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  78. Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2011a). Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis. Scientometrics,87(3), 467–481.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0354-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2011b). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics,5(1), 37–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chaire de recherche du Canada sur les transformations de la communication savanteUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologieMontréalCanada
  3. 3.Department of International StudiesUniversidad Iberoamericana, Ciudad de MéxicoMexicoMexico

Personalised recommendations