The Paradox of Enrichment in Chile’s Ecological Science Funding

Journal of Scientometric Research,2018,7,3,189-193.
Published:December 2018
Type:Research Article
Author(s) affiliations:

Jaime R. Rau1, Fabian M. Jaksic2

1Laboratorio de Ecología (LABECOL), Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas y Biodiversidad, Universidad de Los Lagos, P.O.B. 933, Osorno, CHILE.

2Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CAPES), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, P.O.B. 114-D, Santiago, CHILE.


Aim/Background: Considering its population, Chile is one of the leading countries in scientific research in Latin America. Historically, ecology and environmental sciences have shown productivity and scientific excellence. Proof of this is the award of public funding to the Center for Advanced Studies in Ecology and Biodiversity (CASEB), operational since 2002. Criteria for the allocation of public funds to this Center gave preference to the most productive environmental research group in the country. Thus, scientometric productivity of CASEB researchers may be analyzed critically, before 2002, during its initial (2002-2006) and its final (2007-2011) phases of operation. Results and Conclusion: Before researchers joined CASEB (the 5-year window 1996-2000), their collective median h-index (M) was 6. During the first five years (2002-2006) it dropped to M = 5, while in its final phase (2007-2011) it jumped to M = 12. Published articles increased at an annual percentage growth of 5.7% during its 10 yr operation, while citations did at 6.8%. The direct public investment in CASEB resulted in an increase in the productivity and academic excellence indicators of its 27 researchers. However, significant scientometric changes could only be verified at the end of the decadal funding period. We call this phenomenon “the paradox of enrichment.”

Scientometric parameters of CASEB’s productivity.

Cite This Article

Vancouver Style ::

Cite this Article

Rau JR, Jaksic FM. The Paradox of Enrichment in Chile’s Ecological Science Funding. Journal of Scientometric Research. 2018;7(3):189-193. doi:10.5530/jscires.7.3.30.