IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v32y2023i1p32-46..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The footprint of a metrics-based research evaluation system on Spain’s philosophical scholarship: An analysis of researchers’ perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Ramón A Feenstra
  • Emilio Delgado López-Cózar

Abstract

The use of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has a series of complex impacts on academic inquiry. These systems have gradually spread into a wide range of locations and disciplines, including the humanities. The aim of this study is to examine their effects as perceived by philosophy and ethics researchers in Spain, a country where bibliometric indicators have long been used to evaluate research. The study uses a mixed approach combining quantitative and qualitative data from a self-administered questionnaire completed by 201 researchers and from 14 in-depth interviews with researchers selected according to their affiliation, professional category, gender, and area of knowledge. Results show that the evaluation system is widely perceived to affect university researchers in significant ways, particularly related to publication habits (document type and publication language), the transformation of research agendas and the neglect of teaching work, as well as increasing research misconduct and negatively affecting mental health. Although to a lesser extent, other consequences included increased research productivity and enhanced transparency and impartiality in academic selection processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Ramón A Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2023. "The footprint of a metrics-based research evaluation system on Spain’s philosophical scholarship: An analysis of researchers’ perceptions," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(1), pages 32-46.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2023:i:1:p:32-46.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvac020
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2023:i:1:p:32-46.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.