Proposal Model for the categorization of academics in Higher Education Institutions

The Chilean higher education system has experienced a significant expansion in its scientific production, driven by institutional accreditation requirements and pressures to publish in high-impact indexed journals. This phenomenon has boosted quantitative productivity, but it has also generated side effects, such as a decrease in the quality of research, an increase in retractions and the proliferation of predatory journals. The present study, based on a quantitative and descriptive-correlational methodology, critically analyzes the current criteria of academic evaluation in Chile, highlighting the excessive reliance on metrics such as impact factor, quartiles and the number of publications in Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus. Through a rigorous bibliometric analysis, the lack of recognition to alternative formats of scientific dissemination, such as technical reports, guide books or articles in congresses is evidenced. It is proposed to revalue these formats given their pedagogical relevance and industrial applicability, promoting a more holistic assessment of academic work that incorporates the social, teaching and ethical impact of publications. The paper advocates a “K modes” model, which is able to evaluate categorical variables, in order to achieve a balanced evaluation that recognizes the diversity of academic contributions, promote ethics in publishing and enhance the generation of knowledge aligned with the needs of the country.