ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2026
Responsible research evaluation: integrating quality, leadership, and integrity in national systems. The case of Peru.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: National research evaluation systems often rely on publication-based metrics that equate productivity with performance while overlooking scientific leadership and research integrity. This study examines the Peruvian National Registry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (RENACYT) to inform a more multidimensional framework for research evaluation. Materials and methods: An observational, non-experimental, and analytical study was conducted using data from RENACYT, Scopus, and SciVal for 9,651 researchers during 2019-2024. Four dimensions were assessed across hierarchical levels: scientific production, journal-based impact (Q1-Q4), corresponding authorship as a proxy of leadership, and retractions as indicators of research integrity. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, repeated-measures tests, and count regression models (Poisson, negative binomial, and zero-inflated specifications) were applied. Results: A total of 92,284 publications were identified. Productivity increased across RENACYT levels (3.9 publications in Level VII vs. 62.5 in Distinguished; Conclusion: RENACYT captures gradients in productivity and quality but insufficiently differentiates leadership and integrity. These findings support the proposal of a hybrid evaluation framework integrating productivity with explicit recognition of intellectual leadership and research integrity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.