English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Neff alleges that evaluations of scientist performance by Mexico’s National System of Researchers (SNI) undermine the utility of science in Mexico. Using information from interviews with Mexican ecologists, he suggests that evaluations that use journal impact factor (IF) as a proxy for quality is flawed and relinquish control of science policy to decisions made by editors of top-tier journals. We show that Neff’s arguments, although well-intentioned, are based on factual errors and misinterpretations of the evaluation criteria used by the SNI. Specifically, evaluations focus on research quality and leadership across multiple activities including publications, citations, student training, project funding, and patents, among others. Evaluations do not focus on journal IF. Science in Mexico faces challenges due to the paucity of scientists and inadequate investment in R&D. The SNI, however, represents an outstanding success in strengthening the quality of science at the regional, national, and international levels.

Science is strengthened by Mexico’s researcher evaluation system: Factual errors and misleading claims by Neff