Potential Collaboration Plan

Strategic Choice

Recommended path:

blog post / preliminary data note
  -> contact potential coauthor(s)
  -> preregister stronger design
  -> submit as article

A blog post alone is probably too little for the strength of the result. The current analysis has enough structure for a paper: CAPES-7 programs, a cross-field comparison, language effects, SJR indexing, Q1/Q2 placement, and a plausible Brazilian/local-journal mechanism. The weak point is methodological defensibility in bibliometrics, so a coauthor in bibliometrics or higher-ed research would be useful before preregistration.

Why Contact a Coauthor Before Preregistration

A bibliometrics or higher-ed coauthor could help decide:

  • whether SJR is sufficient or should be triangulated with Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO, or DOAJ;
  • whether to use historical SJR quartiles rather than the current 2024 proxy;
  • how to operationalize Brazilian/local journals;
  • whether CAPES-7 is the right comparison frame;
  • whether to split Linguistics and Literature inside LINGUÍSTICA E LITERATURA;
  • how to phrase claims about quality without overclaiming.

Potential Coauthor Profile

Ideal profile:

  • bibliometrics/scientometrics expertise;
  • knowledge of CAPES/Sucupira;
  • Brazilian higher-education evaluation expertise;
  • experience with Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO, SJR, or database coverage bias;
  • interest in humanities/social-science publication ecology.
  • publishes in English at least sometimes, ideally in international bibliometrics, scientometrics, science-policy, or higher-education venues.

The English-publication criterion matters for practical reasons. A coauthor who has already published in English is more likely to help position the paper for an international venue, anticipate reviewer expectations, and write in the tone used in bibliometrics or higher-education journals.

Screening Criteria Before Contacting

For each possible collaborator, check:

  • Have they published at least one relevant article in English?
  • Have they published in bibliometrics, scientometrics, research evaluation, or higher-education studies?
  • Have they worked with Brazilian graduate education, CAPES, Sucupira, Qualis, SciELO, Scopus, Web of Science, or SJR?
  • Do they seem methodologically careful about database coverage and field differences?
  • Would they plausibly improve the paper’s framing rather than only validate the result?
  • Is their recent work close enough that the project would make sense for them?

Priority should go to candidates who satisfy both:

Brazil/CAPES/higher-ed knowledge
  +
international bibliometrics/scientometrics publication experience

Reviewed Candidate Shortlist

These are not endorsements; they are leads to inspect more carefully. The ranking below prioritizes fit with the current project: bibliometrics, Brazil/CAPES or Brazilian science evaluation, field/database coverage, and evidence of English-language international publication.

Jacqueline Leta, UFRJ

Priority: very high.

Strongest fit among the initial list. She has long-standing bibliometrics/scientometrics work on Brazilian scientific output and database coverage. SciELO’s profile says she has worked in Bibliometrics/Scientometrics since 1994, especially on Brazilian scientific output, and has served on scientometrics/informetrics bodies. She also has English-language international scientometrics work, including work in Scientometrics and a Springer Handbook chapter.

Why she fits:

  • Brazilian science indicators and database coverage are central to this project.
  • Has international scientometrics visibility.
  • Likely to understand the risks of equating indexing with quality.

Possible concern:

  • Senior scholar; may be harder to recruit unless the pitch is very sharp.

Sources:

  • https://25.scielo.org/en/speaker/jacqueline-leta/
  • https://revistas.usp.br/revusp/article/view/13869
  • https://dblp1.uni-trier.de/rec/journals/scientometrics/GlanzelLT06.html
  • https://philpapers.org/rec/LETSCA

Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, UNESP

Priority: very high.

Strong added candidate. She has direct bibliometrics/scientometrics expertise, English-language publication in Scientometrics, and work on Brazilian scientific impact and international collaboration. One especially relevant article analyzes Brazilian institutions using Scopus data, normalized citation impact, and collaboration/corresponding-author status.

Why she fits:

  • Strong method fit for Scopus/SJR/WoS-style indicator work.
  • Clear English/international publication record.
  • Stronger international-publication signal than some initial candidates.

Possible concern:

  • May be less directly tied to CAPES/Sucupira than Calabró, depending on the exact project angle.

Sources:

  • https://scholars.mssm.edu/en/publications/does-corresponding-authorship-influence-scientific-impact-in-coll-2/
  • https://periodicos.ufmg.br/index.php/pci/article/view/22947
  • https://dblp.org/db/journals/scientometrics/scientometrics125

Luciana Calabró, UFRGS

Priority: high.

Good applied fit around CAPES/postgraduate evaluation and scientometric analyses. She appears on work using CAPES/Sucupira, Lattes, Web of Science, Scopus, journal evaluation, impact factor, and graduate-program productivity. She also has English-language publications, including work in Scientometrics and Science and Engineering Ethics.

Why she fits:

  • CAPES/Sucupira and graduate-program evaluation are central to the design.
  • Has worked with scientific production, internationalization, Web of Science, Scopus, and journal evaluation.
  • Probably useful for making the project legible to Brazilian higher-ed/CAPES audiences.

Possible concern:

  • Some of the relevant work is in biomedical/biological sciences or education, so the bibliometrics fit may be more applied than core-theoretical.

Source:

  • https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/78531
  • https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v98y2014i1d10.1007_s11192-013-1017-5.html
  • https://philpapers.org/rec/KAMPOC-4
  • https://rsdjournal.org/rsd/user/setLocale/en?source=%2Findex.php%2Frsd%2Farticle%2Fview%2F46878
  • https://www.sumarios.org/artigo/sistema-de-avalia%C3%A7%C3%A3o-da-capes-indicadores-e-procedimentos-de-monitoramento-e-avalia%C3%A7%C3%A3o-de

Dirce Maria Santin / Sônia Elisa Caregnato, UFRGS

Priority: high to medium-high.

Useful added lead, especially for the conceptual framing around center-periphery, peripheral science, internationalization, and the limits of mainstream indicators. Santin and Caregnato have an English article on center-periphery and science evaluation based on indicators, which is highly relevant to the interpretation of SJR indexing in Brazilian humanities and social sciences.

Why they fit:

  • Strong conceptual fit for database coverage and peripheral science.
  • English-language publication directly about indicators, center-periphery, and evaluation.
  • Good for making the argument more nuanced and less “rankings are truth.”

Possible concern:

  • Depending on recent activity, may be better as conceptual/methodological advisers than as data coauthors.

Sources:

  • https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S0187-358X2019000200013&script=sci_abstract&tlng=en
  • https://rbpg.capes.gov.br/rbpg/article/view/923

Rene Faustino Gabriel Junior, UFRGS

Priority: medium.

Potential information-science/bibliometrics fit. His profile mentions bibliometrics, metric studies of information, BRAPCI, scientific production, and research-data repositories. He has worked with Scopus/Derwent-style bibliometric data and themes like altmetrics/BRAPCI.

Why he fits:

  • Practical bibliometrics/information-science expertise.
  • BRAPCI and underrepresented-area visibility may be relevant to humanities and local journals.

Possible concern:

  • The English-publication fit is less clear. One public profile lists English as basic-to-intermediate, so he may be less ideal if the main need is an international-English paper coauthor.

Source:

  • https://www.escavador.com/sobre/2287037/rene-faustino-gabriel-junior
  • https://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/p2p/article/view/71458
  • https://ojs.letras.up.pt/index.php/prismacom/article/download/3929/3678
  • https://br.linkedin.com/in/rene-faustino-gabriel-junior-bb62a718

José Willer do Prado / UFLA Scientometrics Network

Priority: medium-low for this specific project.

Possible methodological fit on scientometric methods. He has English-language publication in Scientometrics, but the available examples look more like general bibliometric mapping in business/management topics than Brazilian higher-ed evaluation or CAPES/database coverage.

Why he fits:

  • Has published bibliometric work in English.
  • Could help with bibliometric mapping methods.

Possible concern:

  • Weaker apparent fit with CAPES/Sucupira, Brazilian journal ecology, and humanities/social-science indexing bias.

Source:

  • https://educapes.capes.gov.br/handle/capes/1142455
  • https://dblp.org/db/journals/scientometrics/scientometrics106
  • https://www2.ifrn.edu.br/ojs/index.php/HOLOS/article/view/6905?articlesBySimilarityPage=5

Suggested Contact Order

  1. Jacqueline Leta.
  2. Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio.
  3. Luciana Calabró.
  4. Dirce Maria Santin or Sônia Elisa Caregnato.
  5. Rene Faustino Gabriel Junior.
  6. José Willer do Prado.

If only contacting two people first, contact Leta and Grácio. If the goal is to maximize CAPES/Sucupira relevance, contact Leta and Calabró. If the goal is to strengthen the center-periphery/coverage-bias argument, contact Leta and Santin/Caregnato.

Possible Paper Framing

Working title:

Language, Indexing, and Journal Placement in Brazilian CAPES-7 Graduate Programs: A Cross-Disciplinary Comparison with Linguistics/Letras

Core claim:

Linguistics/Letras CAPES-7 output is much less integrated into the international journal-indexing system than comparison CAPES-7 fields. This is visible in lower English-language publication, lower SJR indexing, and lower Q1/Q2 placement when all journal articles are used as the denominator.

Working Hypotheses

  1. Linguistics/Letras has lower SJR indexing than other CAPES-7 fields.
  2. Linguistics/Letras publishes less in English.
  3. English-language publication is associated with higher SJR indexing.
  4. English-language publication is associated with higher Q1/Q2 placement.
  5. The Linguistics/Letras disadvantage shrinks after controlling for English, but does not disappear.
  6. Brazilian/local journal publication mediates part of the indexing gap.
  7. The indexed-only Q1/Q2 rate is a secondary diagnostic; the all-article denominator is primary because non-indexing is substantively informative.

Preregistration Items

Specify before analysis:

  • years covered;
  • CAPES program inclusion criteria;
  • discipline list;
  • focal field definition;
  • whether Linguistics and Literature are split;
  • article-only filter;
  • language coding;
  • journal metric source;
  • historical versus current quartile year;
  • SJR-indexing outcome;
  • Q1 and Q1/Q2 definitions;
  • all-article denominator versus indexed-only denominator;
  • Brazilian/local journal proxy;
  • planned regression models;
  • robustness checks.

Outreach Template

Subject: Potential collaboration on CAPES-7 journal indexing and language

Dear Professor [Name],

I am working on a preliminary bibliometric analysis of CAPES-7 graduate programs in Brazil, focusing on Linguistics/Letras compared with other journal-heavy fields. The initial results suggest a large field difference in English-language publication, SJR indexing, and Q1/Q2 journal placement. One especially striking result is that only a small share of Linguistics/Letras journal articles are matched to SJR, which raises questions about language, Brazilian/local journal publication, and database coverage.

Because the project touches bibliometrics and Brazilian graduate-program evaluation, I am looking for a collaborator with expertise in scientometrics, CAPES/Sucupira, or higher-education evaluation. I would be interested in developing this either as a preregistered study or as a full article after a short preliminary data note.

Would you be open to a brief conversation about whether the design is sound and whether there might be room for collaboration?

Best, [Name]

Immediate Next Steps

  1. Write a careful blog/data-note version with caveats.
  2. Send the note and summary tables to 2-3 potential collaborators.
  3. Ask specifically about metric source, historical SJR data, and Brazilian journal classification.
  4. Preregister only after incorporating bibliometrics feedback.

Copyright © Guilherme Duarte Garcia