Peer review and bibliometric indicators, inseparable companion

Abstract

Researchers are subject to the so-called peer review process. In fact, it can be said that we are the group that is evaluated most often throughout our professional life; it is practically a continuous evaluation until retirement. Promotion within the research career, access to research funds (funded projects), staff contracts, infrastructure funding, to give a few examples, all inevitably involve an evaluation of the researchers involved who compete to access these funds. This fact has been significantly accentuated by the increased competition to access the scarce resources available. This evaluation is fundamentally based on the researcher's curriculum vitae (CV), which must include all of the researcher's achievements. Carrying out this evaluation is always an arduous and complex task, since there are numerous factors to analyze. In fact, there is no unique or infallible formula for selecting the best, although it is true that there are a good number of parameters (indicators) that can make this task easier for us. [1] The famous productivity and quality indicators, a list, not closed, of indicators that keeps growing with the aim of being more efficient, so that no important parameter is overlooked and the evaluation is as accurate and fair as possible. But is this possible?