Evaluative reform and the use of bibliometric indicators in the scientific reports of the health research institutes

Abstract

Purpose. This study examines how reforms in research evaluation influence the selection and use of bibliometric indicators in the scientific reports of Health Research Institutes (IIS) accredited by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII). The aim is to assess the extent to which the principles of responsible research assessment-promoted by initiatives such as DORA and CoARA-have been incorporated into institutional practice.Methodology. A survey was conducted among the heads of scientific production management in the 35 ISCIII-accredited IIS, achieving a 71.4% response rate. The questionnaire collected data on respondents’ knowledge of evaluation reforms, the indicators used, perceived barriers, and alignment with new evaluative frameworks.Findings. Results show high awareness of international initiatives but limited practical application at the institutional level. Traditional indicators-such as journal impact factor-remain predominant, while new qualitative and open science indicators are partially adopted. Key barriers include lack of operational criteria, institutional inertia, and dependency on funding agencies’ requirements.Value. This study provides novel insights into the actual adoption of evaluation reforms within Spanish health research institutes. The findings reveal the gap between discourse and practice and offer guidance for advancing toward more responsible, contextualized, and open science-aligned evaluation practices.