Abstract
Based on our involvement in numerous consortia and projects with colleagues from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as well as on our extensive fieldwork experience in the global South, we have a shared concern on the actual inclusion of LMIC colleagues and institutions in coproducing highly valuable and policy-relevant science. While capacity building is stated as a major goal in various international research projects, especially when involving partners from LMICs or when focusing on research activities in these countries, we think that research from established groups and universities particularly in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), receives more interest and respect on a disproportionate basis. With the present submission, we hope to feed the debate on the academic valorization of research performed by LMICs scholars. Though difficult to measure, this merits close scrutiny.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Ana, J., Koehlmoos, T., Smith, R., & Yan, L. L. (2013). Research misconduct in low- and middle-income countries. PLoS Medicine, 10(3), e1001315. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001315.
Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179.
Beall, J. (2015). The “Metric” system: Yet more chaos in Scholarly publishing. Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 6, 2020–2021.
Chu, K. M., Jayaraman, S., Kyamanywa, P., & Ntakiyiruta, G. (2014). Building research capacity in Africa: Equity and global health collaborations. PLoS Medicine, 11(3), e1001612. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001612.
Clement, T. P. (2014). Authorship matrix: A rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(2), 345–361.
Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Ahimbisibwe, J., Van Moll, R., & Koedam, N. (2003). Neo-colonial science by the most industrialised upon the least developed countries in peer-review publishing. Scientometrics, 56(3), 329–343.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
Janssens de Bisthoven, L. (2009). Supporting development relevant research. In International symposium evaluation of development research, Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences Brussels, pp. 65–74.
Macilwain, C. (2013). Halt to avalanche of performance metrics. Nature, 500, 255.
Marušić, A., Bošnjak, L., & Jerončić, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e23477. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023477.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63.
Osborne, J. W., & Holland, A. (2009). What is authorship, and what should it be? A survey of prominent guidelines for determining authorship in scientific publications. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(15), 1–19.
Pielke, R. A, Jr. (2007). The honest broker making sense of science in policy and politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew/Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23, 325–341.
Van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2012). Intended and unintended consequences of a publish or-perish culture: A worldwide survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1282–1293.
Wilsdon, J. (2015). We need a measured approach to metrics. Nature, 523, 129.
Xin, H. (2006). Scandals shake Chinese science. Science, 312, 1464–1466.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Van der Stocken, T., Hugé, J., Deboelpaep, E. et al. Academic capacity building: holding up a mirror. Scientometrics 106, 1277–1280 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1811-3
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1811-3