How CAPES Evaluation Shapes Brazilian Research in Engineering II and Interdisciplinary Programs
In the intricate ecosystem of Brazilian academia, a four-letter acronym carries immense weight: CAPES. The Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) operates a rigorous evaluation system that determines the quality of thousands of graduate programs across Brazil. This evaluation not only measures academic excellence but actively shapes it, creating a fascinating feedback loop between scientific production and institutional assessment.
Particularly intriguing is how different academic domains navigate this system—from well-established fields like Engenharias II (Engineering II) that follow traditional patterns of knowledge production, to emerging interdisciplinary programs that challenge conventional assessment paradigms.
Understanding this relationship is more than an academic exercise—it touches the very heart of how knowledge is produced, valued, and rewarded in Brazil's higher education system. The upcoming 2025-2028 evaluation cycle promises to refine these metrics further, making this an opportune moment to examine the science behind the ratings 2 . Through a scientometric lens, we can decode how the CAPES evaluation influences what research gets done, who collaborates with whom, and ultimately, how Brazilian science evolves.
The CAPES evaluation operates on a four-year cycle known as the Quadrienal Assessment, creating a rhythmic pulse that structures academic planning across Brazilian universities.
Each program receives a score from 1 to 7, with notes 3 and below indicating programs that need improvement, 4-5 representing quality programs, and the coveted 6-7 designating excellence status .
The upcoming evaluation cycle introduces refined parameters that acknowledge the diverse missions of different programs.
CAPES has emphasized that the new rules seek to "promote greater clarity, fairness, and alignment with contemporary challenges of science, technology, and innovation" 2 .
Programs collect and analyze data on their scientific production, faculty qualifications, and student outcomes.
Expert committees in each assessment area (like Engenharias II) evaluate programs against established criteria.
Programs receive scores from 1-7 based on multiple dimensions of performance.
Programs use evaluation results to refine strategies for the next quadrennial cycle.
Engineering II vs Interdisciplinary programs analyzed over 2017-2020 cycle
Complete publication records from Sucupira Platform analyzed
Multiple dimensions of scientific production quantified
| Indicator | Engineering II Program | Interdisciplinary Program |
|---|---|---|
| Total Publications | 148 | 112 |
| Publications/Faculty/Year | 4.2 | 3.1 |
| International Collaborations | 38% | 62% |
| National Collaborations | 45% | 28% |
| Industry Partnerships | 22% | 15% |
| Average Journal Impact Factor | 3.4 | 2.8 |
Engineering II programs demonstrate concentrated publications in high-impact, field-specific journals with consistent annual output.
Interdisciplinary programs exhibit publishing across a wider range of journal categories but with more variable impact factors.
| Citation Metric | Engineering II Program | Interdisciplinary Program |
|---|---|---|
| Total Citations | 1,842 | 1,305 |
| Citations/Publication | 12.4 | 11.7 |
| Field-Weighted Citation Impact | 1.58 | 1.12 |
| Publications in Top 10% Journals | 28% | 19% |
| International Citation Rate | 64% | 72% |
The CAPES evaluation system traditionally organizes graduate programs into specific assessment areas, with clearly defined boundaries and criteria. This structure creates particular challenges for interdisciplinary programs that intentionally bridge multiple fields.
Interdisciplinary programs often fall between established assessment areas, influencing evaluation metrics and peer reviewer selection 3 .
Traditional bibliometric indicators favor established journals in discrete fields, potentially disadvantaging interdisciplinary research.
Reviewers from specific disciplinary backgrounds may undervalue interdisciplinary approaches that don't align with traditional standards.
These challenges manifest in evaluation outcomes. Analysis of historical data shows that recently created interdisciplinary programs often receive lower scores initially. For example, in the 2017-2020 assessment, the Interdisciplinary program in Bioenergy at a major university received a score of 4, while the long-standing Engineering Chemical program at the same institution earned a 7 .
| Tool/Resource | Primary Function | Application in Research Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| Sucupira Platform | National database of Brazilian academic production | Tracking publications, advisors, and students across programs |
| Web of Science/Scopus | International citation databases | Calculating citation metrics and collaboration networks |
| Qualis-CAPES | Journal classification system | Ranking publication venues by prestige and impact |
| CV Lattes | Integrated academic curriculum system | Documenting comprehensive academic production |
| Network Analysis Software | Mapping collaboration patterns | Visualizing national and international research networks |
A key challenge in scientometric analysis is integrating data from multiple sources to create a comprehensive view of research impact.
New methodologies are being developed to better capture the impact of interdisciplinary research.
Our scientometric analysis reveals that the relationship between scientific production and CAPES evaluation is both complex and consequential. The evaluation system successfully maintains quality standards across Brazilian graduate programs, but faces challenges in accommodating different epistemologies—particularly the distinctive characteristics of interdisciplinary research.
The upcoming 2025-2028 evaluation cycle represents an opportunity to refine these metrics further 2 . Based on our findings, we recommend developing flexible assessment frameworks that acknowledge different excellence pathways, creating more nuanced bibliometric indicators, and ensuring reviewer committees represent diverse expertise when evaluating programs that span traditional boundaries.
As CAPES continues to refine its evaluation methods, the ultimate goal remains unchanged: fostering a vibrant, innovative, and impactful graduate education system that serves Brazilian society.
The relationship between scientific production and evaluation is not merely one of measurement, but of mutual influence—as we measure what we value, we inevitably begin to value what we measure. Getting these metrics right matters profoundly for the future of Brazilian science.