Introduction

In recent years, the Administrative Department of Science, Technology, and Innovation's (Colciencias) national policy to improve the impact of national scientific publications has been a subject of academic debates in Colombian higher education institutions (HEI).

Two aspects have aroused this attention. The first aspect is Colciencias' concerning diagnosis of the low impact of articles and scientific journals in the National System of Competitiveness, Science, Technology, and Innovation (SNCCTeI), which encapsulates the following three indicators (^{Colciencias, 2016}, p. 1):

The second aspect, subjected to critical analysis, is the measures taken by Colciencias "to duplicate high-impact scientific production" (2016, p. 2). Among these measures are 1) The redesign of the national scientific journal classification model, which incorporates criteria that account for their visibility and impact; 2) The adjunct of an expert committee to Colciencias to permanently review the technical criteria defined for the classification model; 3) The implementation of activities led by Colciencias' to promote the continuous updating of the national scientific community in subjects related to bibliometrics and scientometrics; 4) The development of processes by Colciencias to promote the con-tinuous updating of the editorial team of Colombian journals included in Publindex; 5) The design of a plan to strengthen Colombian journals classified in Publindex; 6) The adoption of a technological tool that will be made available to Colombian journals classified in Publindex; 7) The development of a new Publindex portal; 8) The stimulus by Colciencias encouraging the national scientific journals' institutions of provenance to fulfill their commitments by bolstering their resources and processes to guarantee the qua-lity of content and good editorial practices; and 9) The implementation of the necessary changes in other instruments, mechanisms, and models used by the entity, to ensure the coherence of the policy and the articulation of efforts for the purposes expressed in the national policy to improve the impact of national scientific publications. (^{Colciencias, 2016}, pp. 20-21).

These measures are based on the following:

Although the improvement of the quality in the research of Colombian HEI and the intellectual and scientific production of their researchers is an indisputable necessity, many reproaches have been prompted by the effects of the measures; for example, the results of the 830^th Publindex Call to Index of Specialized Colombian Scientific Journals (Convocatoria 768 de 2016).

A total of 604 journals registered for this summons, 583 were endorsed to participate, and only 244 were ultimately included within the four categories established by Colciencias (A1, 1, B, and C). These results mean that only 41.85% of the scientific publications were endorsed by Colciencias for their editorial management and quality of content, evidencing a decline in the ranking of a significant number of journals in comparison to the results of past summons. In 2017, only one Colombian magazine was classified as A1, 14 as A2, 104 as B, and 125 as C (^{Colciencias, 2017}, p. 11).

Upon the release of the final results of this summons, dissenting voices, such as ^{Jácome Roca (2017)}, ^{Díaz (2017)}, ^{Alperin and Rozemblum (2017)}, ^{Ochoa-Jaramillo (2017)}, ^{Caballero-Uribe and Viloria-Doria (2018)}, ^{Gómez Marín and Palacios (2018)}, and ^{Flórez Carranza (2018)} have expressed their reserve concerning the results of the measurement, the methodology used and, above all, the future trends of ranking of the Colombian indexed journals. The main issue is that, following the recently closed 830^th Call to Index of Specialized Colombian Scientific Journals, Publindex 2018 and the 2017 trend, many more scientific publications would drop in ranking or lose it altogether.

This concern intensifies given that the ranking obtained by the magazines "will be valid for two years, from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021" (^{Colciencias, 2018a}, p. 12). In other words, a scientific publication obtaining an inimical classification will have to wait more than two years to modify it, which represents a major setback for publica-tions and HEI that have limited editorial resources and support.

However, far from entering into a discussion of Colciencias' Publindex scientific journal classification model's¹ adequacy and its positive or aspects to be improved, which have already been discussed at length in other scenarios and publications, this editorial explores the possible trends of the results of the 830^th call of 2018. To this end, a comparative analysis was made of the evolution of the Revista Científica General José María Córdova (Colombian Journal of Military and Strategic Studies), using a sample of 40 national journals of the broad area of Social Sciences, subdivided into two areas, Political Sciences, 5.F., (with a universe of 24 journals according to Publindex) and other Social Sciences, 5.I., (with a universe of 77 journals).

The journals and their data were selected based on the following two criteria: 1) Those included in Scopus' Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) database and 2) the remaining journals to complete a sample of 20, according to the order presented in the Publindex database as of March 16, 2019². The data concerning indexes h³ and g⁴ were obtained through the Publish or Perish (PoP)⁵ program used by Publindex (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1 Analysis of the Publindex ranking of Colombian Political Science Journals (selection of 20 publications), 2015-2017. 

Note: journals are arranged in descending h index order for 2017

Source: Created by the author, based on information in Publindex (2019), Scopus (2019), and Publish or Perish (PoP).

Table 2 Analysis of the Publindex ranking of Colombian Other Social Sciences Journals (selection of 20 publications), 2015-2017. 

Note: journals are arranged in descending h index order for 2017

Source: Created by the author, based on information in Publindex (2019), Scopus (2019), and Publish or Perish (PoP).

H index

Figures 1 and 2 show the h index tendencies of the 40 journals analyzed (20 in Political Science and 20 in other Social Sciences). In the case of Political Science (Figure 1), for 2013-2017 (analyzed during the 2018 830^th call by Publindex), 45% of the journals dropped in h index in comparison to the interval of the previous summons (2012-2016), and 50% maintained the same h index. The Revista Científica General José María Córdova (hereafter RCGJMC), corresponding to the remaining 5%, had a 50% increase in its h index in comparison to 2016.

Source: Created by the author, based on information in Publindex (2019), Scopus (2019), and Publish or Perish (PoP).

Figure 1 Evolution of the h index of 20 Colombian Political Science journals, 2015-2017. 

Source: Created by the author, based on information in Publindex (2019), Scopus (2019), and Publish or Perish (PoP).

Figure 2 Evolution of the h index of 20 Colombian journals in other social sciences, 2015-2017. 

Regarding the Social Sciences (Figure 2), for 2013-2017, the h index of 65% of the journals dropped during the interval of the most recent call in comparison to the previous (2012-2016). Thirty percent of the journals maintained the same h index as in the previous interval. The RCGJMC, a part of the remaining 5%, had a 50% increase in its h index, compared to 2016.

G Index

The trends of the g index of the 40 journals analyzed are detailed in Figures 3 and 4. During 2013-2017, 40% of the Political Science journals lowered their g index (Figure 3) during the period of the latest call, in comparison to the previous (2012-2016). Forty percent of the journals maintained the same g index as in the previous interval, and 20% increased. In this scenario, the RCGJMC had a 67% increase in its g index, compared to 2016.

Source: Created by the author, based on information in Publindex (2019), Scopus (2019), and Publish or Perish (PoP).

Figure 3 Evolution of the g index of 20 Colombian Political Science journals, 2015-2017. 

Source: Created by the author, based on information in Publindex (2019), Scopus (2019), and Publish or Perish (PoP).

Figure 4 Evolution of the g index of 20 Colombian journals in other social sciences, 2015-2017. 

Seventy percent of journals in other social sciences (Figure 4) registered a lower g index for 2013-2017 in comparison to the interval of the previous summons (2012-2016). Thirty percent of the journals maintained the same g index as in the previous interval. The RCGJMC increased its g index by 67% compared to 2016.

Publindex ranking

Of the Political Science journals analyzed (Figure 5), 55% lowered their 2016 Publindex ranking, compared to 2015; 30% maintained their ranking, and only 15% improved in the evaluation. In the area of other social sciences (Figure 6), for 2016, 65% descended in ranking (including a 30% that lost its ranking). Fifteen percent maintained the same ranking, and 20% improved their classification.

Source: Created by the author, based on information by Publindex (2019).

Figure 5 Evolution of the Publindex ranking of 20 Colombian Political Science journals, 2015-2017. 

Source: Created by the author, based on information by Publindex (2019).

Figure 6 Evolution of the Publindex ranking of 20 Colombian journals in other social sciences, 2015-2017. 

Final discussion

The results obtained in this exercise (conditioned to the results of 40 selected publications) suggest an uncertain scenario for the Colombian indexed journals should the same tendencies of the sample analyzed here prevail. For Political Science journals, the sample corresponds to 83% of the magazines in this area; for publications in other social sciences, the sample is equivalent to 26% classified by Publindex in 2016.

The challenges of Colombian scientific publications to achieve higher visibility and impact are not new and have been examined previously by others, such as (^{Miguel, 2011}; ^{Romero-Torres, Acosta-Moreno, & Tejada-Gómez, 2013}; ^{Ossa & Cudina, 2016}; ^{Pavas, 2016}; ^{Rubio-Romero, 2017}; ^{Aguilar Bustamante & Aguado López, 2018}; and ^{Fernández-Osorio & Martín Alvarado, 2018}). However, HEI, editors, and editorial com-mittees need new and improved strategies to increase the quality of the national scientific production and comply with the standards required by Colciencias; for example, straigh-tforward and effective editorial processes; shorter response times in manuscript evaluation and publication; constructive and proactive appreciations of the articles; better periodicity in the edited numbers; attentive, efficient, and personalized communications with authors; as well as a better submittal guidance for the authors. These efforts imply a greater commitment by the academic community in carrying out their roles (author, evaluator, editor, and others) with the weightiness and ethical principles required.

It is also essential that journals maintain quality-related elements, such as the open access to content, involvement of non-endogenous expert peer reviewers, use of social and academic networks to disseminate contents, identification of authors using ORCID, use of plagiarism-prevention tools, meticulous review of article publication metadata, use of thesauri for keyword selection, use of DOI, continuous updating of web page information, use of repositories and indexing and summary systems (SIR), and the use of good ethics and quality practices, such as those established in the Declaración de San Francisco (DORA)⁶ or the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)⁷.

Finally, it is advisable to take into account other resources for publishers and authors, such as the Sci-Rev and Publons editorial management evaluation platforms that expose the authors' perspectives on journals (an element usually ignored in the editorial process) and provide valuable feedback to produce effective improvement plans. All this, without overlooking the publications' aesthetics and dynamism through striking and modern article layouts, attractive, dynamic, and updated web pages (OJS or other editorial management and file retrieval platforms). The readership (potential authors and reviewers from other latitudes), in addition to quality, demand multidisciplinary and rich content.

Thus, although it is imperative to maintain a constructive dialogue and critical attitude towards the policies established by Colciencias and scientific measurement systems, based strongly on profit, undoubtedly, the academic community is called upon to maintain and increase its quality criteria, look for alternatives and strategies to guarantee the impact, and do everything in its power to strengthen the national research system.