Evaluation of Scientific Production in Brazil

The New Paradigm of Scientific Production Evaluation in Brazil: Toward an Article-Centered System

The reform announced in Brazil’s academic evaluation system marks a decisive turning point in national editorial policy. With CAPES’s decision to abandon—or at least radically transform—the Qualis Periódicos model and shift toward an approach based on the evaluation of individual articles, we are witnessing a strategic restructuring—not merely a technical one—of the operational foundations of Brazilian graduate education.

Context and Motivations for Change

Since the mid-1990s, Qualis Periódicos has played a central role as an instrument for classifying journals and guiding graduate programs, researchers, and editors on “where to publish” and how their work would be evaluated. The system functioned as a reference metric, ranking entire journals from A1 to C.

Over time, however, the limitations of this model became evident. It assigned the same rating to all articles published in a high-ranking journal, even when some were less rigorous or of lower impact. Conversely, highly relevant papers published in emerging or regional journals were penalized due to the journal’s ranking.

To address these distortions, CAPES introduced the Qualis Referência (2017–2020), which incorporated more technical and standardized criteria across fields. Still, the underlying logic remained journal-centric.

The new system proposed for 2025–2028 shifts—at least partially—toward individual article evaluation, signaling a profound change in paradigm.

The Three Procedures and Disciplinary Challenges

CAPES has defined three possible procedures for classifying articles, which may be applied independently or in combination by each evaluation area:

Procedure 1: Maintains emphasis on the journal’s bibliometric indicators but projects them at the article level. Thus, an article published in a prestigious journal may still benefit from the journal’s historical metrics.

Procedure 2: Combines quantitative indicators (citations, downloads, altmetrics) with qualitative aspects linked to the journal, such as indexation, reputation, and editorial quality practices (e.g., open access policies).

Procedure 3: Adopts a qualitative assessment of each article—or of a representative sample—valuing originality, conceptual contribution, or theoretical impact, independent of quantitative metrics.

Each approach involves distinct evaluation scales—for example, Procedures 1 and 2 use refined strata (A1–A8), while Procedure 3 employs qualitative categories such as Excellent, Good, or Regular.

This plurality of procedures is a step forward, respecting disciplinary diversity. In the natural sciences, bibliometric indicators are more consolidated; in the social sciences and humanities, qualitative, content-centered evaluations may prevail. Yet this raises a key dilemma: how to ensure comparability and fairness across fields, preventing overly divergent criteria from hindering inter-area evaluation?

Implications for Journals, Editors, and Researchers

For Scientific Journals

• Decentralization of journal prestige: The weight of the journal as an evaluative unit decreases; each article must stand on its own merit. This pressures journals to strengthen editorial rigor, peer review integrity, and robust metadata and interoperability standards.
• Editorial infrastructure as a differentiator: Publishers already implementing modern practices—Crossref, ORCID, DOI, repositories, altmetrics—will gain competitive advantage.
• Increased transparency: Open peer review, data availability statements, and transparent editorial processes become central.
• Metric distortions risk: The pursuit of measurable indicators may stimulate undesirable behaviors—salami slicing, strategic self-citation, or visibility manipulation on academic social networks.

Smaller journals, particularly those without strong technological or indexing infrastructure, risk marginalization. Conversely, well-organized Brazilian journals may gain greater recognition if they adapt proactively.

For Researchers and Graduate Programs

• More freedom in journal choice: Pressure to publish exclusively in high-ranking Qualis journals decreases, provided the article itself is solid and relevant.
• Visibility and impact strategies: Authors will need to engage with alternative metrics (altmetrics) and dissemination strategies (academic networks, repositories, public communication).
• Citation timing: Recently published works may be disadvantaged by quantitative evaluations, as they have not yet accumulated citations—hence the role of hybrid approaches to mitigate this bias.
• Regional inequality challenges: Programs in regions with limited editorial infrastructure may face greater difficulties, potentially widening institutional disparities.

Three Possible Future Scenarios

Virtuous Scenario:
Brazilian journals adopt modern practices (infrastructure, open science, multiple metrics). Quality articles—even in emerging journals—gain visibility and recognition. Gradually, the national editorial ecosystem becomes stronger, more plural, and internationally competitive.

Inconsistent Transition Scenario:
The diversity of criteria across fields leads to misaligned results, low comparability, and limited practical effectiveness. Elements of the old structure persist, generating uncertainty. Technological and financial constraints restrict progress.

Adverse Scenario:
Adaptation costs become prohibitive for many national journals. The system’s focus shifts to large international publishers with established infrastructure, reinforcing hegemony and inequality. Brazil’s editorial diversity declines.

Final Considerations and Strategic Recommendations

The effectiveness of this new model will depend heavily on the adaptive capacity of all stakeholders—editors, researchers, graduate programs, and funding agencies—and on transparent, careful implementation by CAPES. Strategic recommendations include:

• Proactive engagement: Journals should anticipate new requirements by adopting best editorial practices, interoperable infrastructure, and transparency policies.
• Institutional capacity-building: Train editorial teams with technical skills in metadata management, editorial integrity, and performance measurement tools.
• Cross-field coordination: To ensure comparability and balance across disciplines, evaluation committees should engage in dialogue and share best practices.
• Continuous monitoring and evaluation: Track the effects of this transition with feedback mechanisms and methodological adjustments throughout each evaluation cycle.
• Inclusion and support for smaller journals: Provide technical and institutional assistance to under-resourced publications, preventing unequal editorial concentration.

The replacement—or transformation—of Qualis into an article-centered system represents a fundamental reorientation of national editorial policy. This is not merely a metric change; it is an opportunity to rebuild trust, legitimacy, and fairness in Brazilian scientific evaluation. If implemented effectively, it can expand diversity, strengthen national leadership, and align Brazil with international best practices in academic assessment.