Array
(
    [0] => stdClass Object
        (
            [journal] => stdClass Object
                (
                    [id_jnl] => 87
                )

        )

    [1] => stdClass Object
        (
            [section] => stdClass Object
                (
                    [section] => 289
                )

        )

    [2] => stdClass Object
        (
            [title] => Array
                (
                    [0] => Beyond the numbers: Scientific evaluation, bibliometric metrics, and institutional responsibility in Latin America@en
                    [1] => Más allá de los números: evaluación científica, métricas bibliométricas y responsabilidad institucional en América Latina@es
                )

        )

    [3] => stdClass Object
        (
            [abstract] => Array
                (
                    [0] => Objective. The utilization of bibliometric metrics and institutional rankings has emerged as a pivotal element in the contemporary scientific evaluation paradigm. This study critically examined the phenomenon of insufficiently reflexive promotion of indicators, with particular attention to its expression in Latin America, where global rankings have been incorporated into institutional discourses as symbols of prestige rather than as instruments for scientific improvement.
Design/Methodology/Approach. A comparative analysis of the World’s Top 2% Scientists ranking was conducted in relation to other evaluation systems, including the Highly Cited Researchers (Clarivate), the Scimago Institutions Rankings, and the United Kingdom’s Research Excellence Framework. The identification of their methodological foundations and structural limitations was a central objective of this analysis. The analysis drew on a selection of relevant literature and observations on recent institutional trends.
Results. The evaluation systems that were analyzed had been shown to exhibit documented structural biases, vulnerability to manipulation, and an absence of methodological consensus. In the context of Latin America, the implementation of global rankings has given rise to ethical and epistemological tensions, stemming from their uncritical application and instrumentalization for the purposes of enhancing visibility and promoting academic marketing.
Conclusions/Value. The argument posits that scientific evaluation should transition toward open, contextualized, and socially responsible models, consistent with the principles of Open Science and epistemic equity. The following concrete operational proposals are presented for Latin American universities. These proposals are intended to assist these institutions in the development of transparent and contextualized evaluation systems.@en
                    [1] => Objetivo. El uso de métricas bibliométricas y rankings institucionales se ha consolidado como un componente central en la evaluación científica contemporánea. Este ensayo de perspectiva examina críticamente el fenómeno de la promoción insuficientemente reflexiva de indicadores, con especial atención a su expresión en América Latina, donde los rankings globales han sido incorporados en discursos institucionales como símbolos de prestigio más que como herramientas de mejora científica.
Diseño/Metodología/Enfoque. Se analiza comparativamente el ranking World´s Top 2% Scientists con otros sistemas de evaluación —Highly Cited Researchers (Clarivate), Scimago Institutions Rankings y el Research Excellence Framework del Reino Unido—, identificando sus fundamentos metodológicos y limitaciones estructurales documentadas en la literatura. El análisis se basa en literatura relevante seleccionada y observaciones sobre tendencias institucionales recientes.
Resultados. Los sistemas de evaluación analizados presentan sesgos estructurales documentados, vulnerabilidad a la manipulación y ausencia de consenso metodológico. En América Latina, los rankings globales generan tensiones éticas y epistemológicas derivadas de su aplicación acrítica y su instrumentalización con fines de visibilidad y marketing académico.
Conclusiones/Valor. Se argumenta que la evaluación científica debe orientarse hacia modelos abiertos, contextualizados y socialmente responsables, coherentes con los principios de la Ciencia Abierta y la equidad epistémica. Se presentan propuestas operacionales concretas para universidades latinoamericanas orientadas a construir sistemas de evaluación propios, transparentes y contextualizados.@es
                )

        )

    [4] => stdClass Object
        (
            [author] => Array
                (
                    [0] => Álvaro Puelles-Díaz
                    [1] => Ivonne Vargas-Celis
                    [2] => Héctor García-Leal
                )

        )

    [5] => stdClass Object
        (
            [subject] => Array
                (
                    [0] => Research evaluation@en
                    [1] => Research metrics@en
                    [2] => Academic ethics@en
                    [3] => Latin america@en
                    [4] => Open science@en
                    [5] => Scientific visibility@en
                    [6] => Evaluación científica@es
                    [7] => Métricas de investigación@es
                    [8] => Ética académica@es
                    [9] => América latina@es
                    [10] => Ciencia abierta@es
                    [11] => Visibilidad científica@es
                )

        )

    [6] => stdClass Object
        (
            [source] => stdClass Object
                (
                    [vol] => 6
                    [nr] => 
                    [year] => 2026
                    [theme] => 
                )

        )

    [7] => stdClass Object
        (
            [datePub] => Array
                (
                    [0] => 2026-07-07
                )

        )

    [8] => stdClass Object
        (
            [DOI] => Array
                (
                    [0] => stdClass Object
                        (
                            [type] => DOI
                            [value] => Array
                                (
                                    [0] => 10.47909/ijsmc.367
                                )

                        )

                )

        )

    [9] => stdClass Object
        (
            [http] => Array
                (
                    [0] => stdClass Object
                        (
                            [type] => HTTP
                            [value] => Array
                                (
                                    [0] => https://ijsmc.pro-metrics.org/index.php/i/article/view/367
                                )

                        )

                    [1] => stdClass Object
                        (
                            [type] => HTTP
                            [value] => Array
                                (
                                    [0] => https://ijsmc.pro-metrics.org/index.php/i/article/view/367/226
                                )

                        )

                    [2] => stdClass Object
                        (
                            [type] => HTTP
                            [value] => Array
                                (
                                    [0] => https://ijsmc.pro-metrics.org/index.php/i/article/view/367/227
                                )

                        )

                )

        )

    [10] => stdClass Object
        (
            [language] => Array
                (
                    [0] => en
                    [1] => es
                )

        )

    [11] => stdClass Object
        (
            [license] => Array
                (
                    [0] => Copr
                    [1] => by-nc/4.0
                )

        )

)