Keeping up to date is a constant preoccupation in editing a scientific journal, even if this updating does not relate to the specific field of editing. From analysis on the current social and academic scene, we cannot deny that the quota system for universities is a current topic.
The idea is to facilitate access to the best public universities for individuals who, because of factors that are considered to be socially excluding, such as race and color, would have greater difficulty in achieving such access. It is difficult to comprehend why race or color disqualify people, given that the most powerful man in the world today comes from a race that has been considered to be excluded. Another point that is difficult to understand is why such access should be more difficult for these individuals, because as far as we know, there is no intellectual difference between this group and the remainder of the students who seek places in state-of-theart universities.
To continue with this proposition, let us accept this reasoning, which originates from a political party that today has absolute domination of power in Brazil.
Let's try to introduce a quota system in the RBO!!!
Our criteria cannot be race or color, because we do not have access to this level of identification of our authors, given that this does not affect the quality of the scientific study in any way.
Perhaps socioeconomic level? How could socioeconomic level interfere with the production of a scientific study? How would we have access to the socioeconomic level of the authors? Or of the coauthors?
No, this criterion is impossible to validate, since we do not have the capacity to identify it and even less so, to judge it, and this item does not affect the quality of the scientific study in any way.
Perhaps the geographical distribution? Could it be that because an author produced a study in the north of the country, this makes the study better or worse than a study produced in the south?
No, this criterion does not apply, because there are orthopedics services in the north that are better structures than some in the south of the country, and vice versa, and therefore this criterion will not affect the quality of the study in any way.
The only way of introducing a quota system into the RBO would be by accepting studies of lower quality, since this is the only criterion that is of interest to us.
What percentage should we accept: 20, 30 or 50%, as has been proposed for the universities?
If we accept 50%, we would have half of the journal of lower quality. We would be throwing away our long-term work towards improving its quality and we would be discouraging production of good-quality studies.
If we accept 20 or 30%, we would have a fifth or a third of the journal presenting poor quality. Our current rejection rate is 20%.
We would initially have to ask our editors and consultants to have a certain degree of tolerance for these studies. I do not know how we would do this, considering that the methods used to convince people to support one's ideas that were used by the party that created the system had the consequence that some of the people doing the convincing were sent to prison. However, as the editor, I do not need to worry, considering that the people responsible for the ideas in the party in question, with regard to convincing people, were not even cited in the legal case that led to their persuaders being sent to prison.
How would we inform our readers?
In the system of university quotas, it will be easy to identify such individuals, because they will have the stigma of race or color, which, by the way, is an enormous injustice, because such individuals who did not use the benefit of the quota system and entered university through their capacity in a competition between equals will be labeled as having benefited.
We need to identify the studies of low quality. If not, this will be unfair to the authors of good-quality studies. Perhaps we will identify them by using a subtitle such as "Study of Lower Quality", or by using a different typeface. Do you suppose that studies identified in this manner will be read or cited?
If they are not read or cited, their authors will not be stimulated to produce further studies and will terminate their scientific production with this study that was published as one of low quality; or alternatively, they will avoid having this type of title that might disqualify future studies.
Authors who have to make corrections to their good-quality studies in order to achieve publication will feel that they have been unfairly treated when they see themselves in the same journal in which studies of lower quality appear.
Perhaps we should have an edition consisting only of lower quality studies! This cannot be a good idea, because if it were, university course only for quota-holders would have been set up. In structuring a scientific journal, it is difficult not to use the only criterion for making a judgment, i.e. the quality of the study, or only to use it partially. Creation of parallel criteria, whether these are geographical, economic or social, is not appropriate when quality is being judged.
I think that it is better to give up the idea of having quotas in the RBO. In relation to this issue, we are going to remain out-of-date, but with quality.
Gilberto Luis CamanhoEditor-in-chief Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
Apr 2013
