Producción Científica

This study aims to examine the development and trends of research related to radicalism in the context of digital technology. Research data was obtained using the Publish or Perish reference manager application by taking references from journals indexed by Google Scholar. A total of 907 articles relevant to the keywords “Radicalism” AND “Digital Technology” from 2018 to 2023 were collected. The data was then analysed and visualized using the VOSviewer application. The results provide insight into the development of radicalism research in the era of digital technology. Bibliometric analysis reveals year-to-year research trends, the main contribution of citation counts, and the development of key concepts in the literature. The results of this study can provide a foundation for future research into a better understanding of radicalism in the context of digital technology.

In this editorial, we will introduce the contributions to the Special Issue entitled “Measuring Open Access Uptake: Databases, Metrics, and International Comparisons.” The contributions to this Special Issue explore the methods and metrics that are used to assess open access (OA) uptake across disciplines and regions, a crucial topic considering the growing push by several research institutions worldwide to achieve 100% OA. We will discuss the impact of OA on scholarly publishing, focusing on how economic factors and discipline-specific practices shape its adoption. Additionally, we will examine the transformation of OA models, the citation benefits of a hybrid OA model, and regional perspectives. Our analysis identifies key challenges and disparities in OA adoption and suggests future directions for achieving sustainable and equitable access to research.

Discussions about epistemic inequalities have for several years highlighted the need to engage critically and reflexively with the politics of citation. Many authors have called for colleagues to correct longstanding epistemic and material injustices by proactively citing scholars and scholarship from marginalised groups, thereby producing radical knowledge that disrupts power. Analysing the epistemic-political grammar of these calls, I note that they often assume that resistance and disruption are intrinsic to corrective citation – i.e. that citing names understood as marginal will by default undermine relations of power. But is that always the case? Drawing on three sets of empirical examples, I demonstrate that citation often does not have the epistemic and material effects we predict, or hope, it will, and may reinforce some inequalities at the same time as it disrupts others. I show that the effects of citation are complex and contingent because they are shaped by unpredictable interactions between different structures of power, unexpected (dis)connections between global and local inequalities, and dynamic relationships between injustice within texts and inequalities beyond them. I argue, therefore, that we must question the more binary and reifying logics of contemporary conceptualisations of citation and attempt to think about corrective citation differently. To contribute to this rethinking, I draw on several authors to propose an approach that celebrates the potential of corrective citation, but remains attentive to its limitations, foregrounding complexity and opacity, recognising the possible failures of radical epistemic practices, and probing our affective investments in them.

Psychosociology theories indicate that individual evaluation is integral to the recognition of professional activities. Building upon Christophe Dejours’ contributions, this recognition is influenced by two complementary judgments: the “utility” judgment from those in hierarchy and the “beauty” judgment from the peers. The aim of this paper is to elucidate how at INRAE individual assessment of scientists is conducted. This process follows a qualitative and multicriteria-based approach by peers, providing both appreciations and advice to the evaluated scientists (the “beauty” judgment). Furthermore, we expound on how INRAE regularly adapts this process to the evolving landscape of research practices, such as interdisciplinary collaboration or open science, assuring that assessments align with the current approaches of research activities.