Principles for Recognizing Scientific Merit and Implementing DORA Recommendations

Revista UGC (RUGC), published by Universidad del Golfo de California, incorporates the principles of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) into its editorial guidelines. This commitment reflects the journal's intention to strengthen a scholarly communication model in which objectivity, intellectual independence, and evidence-based recognition of scientific advances across different fields of knowledge take precedence. Its multidisciplinary orientation and quarterly publication schedule, with issues released in January, April, July, and October, provide the framework through which the journal promotes the dissemination of original research findings and the exchange of knowledge among specialized academic communities.

For RUGC, the significance of a scholarly contribution lies in its ability to provide well-supported explanations, expand the boundaries of knowledge, and address relevant questions arising from contemporary realities. Accordingly, manuscript assessment should be grounded in the depth of scientific reasoning, the correspondence between research claims and supporting evidence, the suitability of investigative strategies, and the scope of the conclusions. The reputation of a publication, its inclusion in particular indexing systems, or statistical measures associated with its dissemination do not constitute sufficient evidence of the intellectual importance of the research it publishes.

The diversity of scientific fields represented in the journal requires recognition that knowledge production does not follow a single methodological framework. Each discipline develops its own investigative procedures, validation mechanisms, and approaches to presenting findings. Based on this understanding, RUGC supports assessments tailored to the particular characteristics of submitted manuscripts, avoiding the indiscriminate application of standards developed within one discipline to other fields with different foundations and research practices. Methodological appropriateness and the strength of supporting evidence must therefore be considered within the scientific context to which each investigation belongs.

The examination of manuscripts submitted to the journal is understood as an intellectual and developmental activity whose purpose extends beyond determining whether a contribution should be published. Through specialized peer review, the journal seeks to identify the strengths of research proposals, critically examine their arguments, and provide recommendations that contribute to improving the presentation of findings. Decisions concerning acceptance, revision, or rejection must be supported by substantiated academic reasoning, consistent with established editorial provisions and the requirements of a peer-reviewed scientific publication.

RUGC maintains that the recognition of researchers should not depend on circumstances unrelated to the substance of their scholarly contributions. Professional prominence, collaboration networks, university affiliation, nationality, or the previous academic achievements of submitting authors cannot replace rigorous scientific examination. This position seeks to preserve equitable opportunities for specialists with different levels of experience, institutional backgrounds, and academic traditions, ensuring that research proposals are considered according to their intellectual foundations rather than external attributes associated with their authors.

Regarding instruments designed to quantify academic production, the journal distinguishes between the information provided by statistical records and the scholarly judgments required to determine the significance of research. Citation counts, impact indicators, and positions within bibliographic rankings may describe certain patterns of dissemination, but they are insufficient to establish the validity of arguments, the usefulness of discoveries, or the potential applications of research findings. For this reason, RUGC discourages the use of such measurements as the sole basis for decisions concerning scientific output, individual research careers, or the performance of research institutions.

The advancement of knowledge encompasses achievements that may take different forms depending on their objectives and fields of application. A conceptual formulation, a technological solution, an intervention proposal, an experimental procedure, or an innovative interpretation may represent a significant scientific advance without necessarily attracting a high number of citations. RUGC acknowledges this diversity of contributions and seeks to ensure that their assessment reflects their substantive value, considering both their scientific foundations and the potential practical relevance of their outcomes.

The responsibilities of those involved in editorial management include ensuring that manuscript assessment procedures are understandable, consistent, and open to review. From this perspective, the journal encourages well-reasoned reviewer comments, the identification of potential conflicts of interest, and the adoption of decisions supported by verifiable evidence. Peer review must be conducted with independence of judgment, confidentiality, and respect for all individuals participating in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge.

Universidad del Golfo de California, through the editorial team responsible for Revista UGC, will promote the systematic review of these guidelines to identify opportunities for improving manuscript selection, reviewer practices, and the use of quantitative information. The progressive implementation of DORA recommendations also entails encouraging continuous reflection on how scientific work is recognized and on the consequences that assessment procedures may have for participation and development within academic communities.

Through this declaration, Revista UGC establishes an editorial position that supports research assessment grounded in evidence, specialized academic reasoning, and recognition of the diversity of scientific thought. Its commitment is to contribute to an environment in which the significance of discoveries, proposals, and interpretations is determined by their actual contribution to knowledge, rather than by external indicators that, when considered independently, provide only a limited representation of their true scholarly value.