This Correspondence is in response to a Commentary by Peter Lawrence in Nature on 20 March, 2003. Click here to read this article.

Sir – I fully agree with the concern expressed by Peter A. Lawrence in his Commentary (Nature 422, 259–261; 2003) about how different strategies and manoeuvres adopted by scientists desperate to publish in a few top journals can be disruptive to the quality of research. But in addition, the policy of considering “the journal to be more important than the scientific message” is having an even more devastating effect on science in developing countries.

I am speaking not only of my experience in Brazil, but also of other countries of similar social and economic standing, where money — and money for science — is much scarcer than in developed countries. Why is it worse here than there?

First, of course, there is much less money to be invested in science, and thus its misuse is proportionally more detrimental. Second, the 'accountability culture' has been imported and widely adopted, with neither assessment of its validity nor critical analysis of its consequences. It is troublesome that such an essential issue has been taken for granted by the scientific community, which by definition is supposed to accept facts and procedures only when solid data leave no space for doubt.

Finally, a numerical assessment of scientific merit minimizes the number of important variables, and consequently reduces the possibilities of defining the priorities and scientific strategies that best fit local demands.

I am fully aware of the international character of science and of the universality of the criteria for judging its quality. However, this global view does not mean that each country should forsake its individuality and its capacity to define its own criteria and methods for assessing merit.