A multi-scale perspective for assessing publishing circuits in non-hegemonic countries

Abstract

University Rankings and impact factor indicators were critical in the extension of the global belief in the intrinsic academic value of “World Class Institutions,” along with the international recognition of successful individuals forged through mainstream journals. However, these supposedly global standards were not adopted passively, nor massively, in the so-called periphery. Drawing from quantitative and qualitative studies of evaluative cultures in Latin America, particularly in Argentina, this paper observes various circuits of recognition and different paths for prestige-building. First, it discusses a multi-scale approach to national scientific fields highlighting heterogeneity in terms of the orientation of research agendas and styles of academic publishing. Evaluative cultures are examined as a complex set of instances of legitimation that provide room for maneuvering between global standards and local orders. Second, the paper delves into the role played by Latin America in forging an open access, non-commercial, regional publishing circuit with a dominant, but not exclusive, composition of journals from the social sciences and humanities. Finally, it argue that facing this dynamical publishing ecosystem developed in the public domain, national research assessment systems are alienated by incentives directed only to performance in mainstream publishing.