Responsible research evaluation: integrating quality, leadership, and integrity in national systems. The case of Peru

Millones-Gómez P.A.; Castillo-Nunez J.P.S.; Paucca-Calla K.J.; Minchón-Medina C.A.; Castro-Delgado V.L.; Sotelo-Llancari S.; Ignacio-Punin C.; Rodríguez-Salazar D.Y.; Urrutia-Baca V.H. · Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics (2026) · DOI: 10.3389/frma.2026.1842222

Resumen

Introduction – National research evaluation systems often rely on publication-based metrics that equate productivity with performance while overlooking scientific leadership and research integrity. This study examines the Peruvian National Registry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (RENACYT) to inform a more multidimensional framework for research evaluation. Materials and methods – An observational, non-experimental, and analytical study was conducted using data from RENACYT, Scopus, and SciVal for 9, 651 researchers during 2019–2024. Four dimensions were assessed across hierarchical levels: scientific production, journal-based impact (Q1–Q4), corresponding authorship as a proxy of leadership, and retractions as indicators of research integrity. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, repeated-measures tests, and count regression models (Poisson, negative binomial, and zero-inflated specifications) were applied. Results – A total of 92, 284 publications were identified. Productivity increased across RENACYT levels (3.9 publications in Level VII vs. 62.5 in Distinguished; F = 1, 162.572, p < 0.001), although with substantial within-level dispersion and differentiated temporal trajectories (Time × Level: F = 44.662, p < 0.001). Higher levels concentrated Q1 output (30.8 vs. 0.7 articles per author; F = 1, 090.183, p < 0.001), while differences became less pronounced in Q3–Q4 journals. Corresponding authorship increased with level (β = 1.624 for Level I, p < 0.001) but remained heterogeneous even among top categories. Retractions were positively associated with productivity (coef. = 0.013, p < 0.001) reflecting differential exposure to integrity-related risks rather than uniform patterns across levels. Conclusion – RENACYT captures gradients in productivity and quality but insufficiently differentiates leadership and integrity. These findings support the proposal of a hybrid evaluation framework integrating productivity with explicit recognition of intellectual leadership and research integrity. Copyright

Instituciones: Universidad Nacional de Trujillo; Universidad Privada Norbert Wiener