ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Res. Metr. Anal.
Sec. Research Policy and Strategic Management
Responsible research evaluation: Integrating quality, leadership, and integrity in National Systems. The case of Peru
- PA
Pablo Alejandro Millones-Gómez 1
- JP
Jean Paul Castillo-Nuñez 1
- KJ
Kenyie Jossuet Paucca-Calla 1
- MM
MINCHON MEDINA CARLOS ALBERTO 2
- VL
Vanessa Lizet Castro-Delgado 1
- SS
Samantha Sotelo-Llancari 1
- CI
Cecilia Ignacio-Punin 1
- DY
David Yeret Rodriguez-Salazar 1
- VH
Victor Hugo Urrutia-Baca 3
1. Grupo INSCIENCE, Vicerrectorado de Investigación, Universidad Privada Norbert Wiener, Lima, Peru
2. Faculty of Physical Sciences and Mathematics, Department of Statistics, National University of Trujillo, Trujillo, Peru
3. Tecnologico de Monterrey Escuela de Ingenieria y Ciencias, Monterrey, Mexico
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Abstract
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 = 1162.572, 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 = 1090.183, 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.
Summary
Keywords
academic leadership, RENACYT, research evaluation, research integrity, Scientific production
Received
29 March 2026
Accepted
15 May 2026
Copyright
© 2026 Millones-Gómez, Castillo-Nuñez, Paucca-Calla, CARLOS ALBERTO, Castro-Delgado, Sotelo-Llancari, Ignacio-Punin, Rodriguez-Salazar and Urrutia-Baca. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jean Paul Castillo-Nuñez
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.