The Psychology journals of Ibero-America are playing a decisive role in the discipline dynamics of the region, not only because they have had an increase on their visibility, but because this increase has been linked to the rise of the offer of formation programs through all the region, the number of students, and, therefore, the number of professionals.

Today, our region have the largest number of psychologists of the world, among Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Spain, Peru and Chile, there are more than a million psychologists. If we take into account that Mexico has more than 800 psychology programs, it is evident that formation is not always attached to research developments on the same proportion, although there is an increase (Gallegos, Berra, Benito, & López-López, 2014; López-López, de Moya Anegón, Acevedo-Triana, Garcia, & Silva, 2015; Vera-Villarroel, López-López, Lillo, & Silva, 2011).

Currently, the FIAP-Redalyc Portal has 101 psychology journals, which is only a sample of how many there are, since this portal only includes open access journals that have passed a set of more than 70 criteria for editorial quality, not taking into account journals that are or have restricted access (Federación Iberoamericana de Asociaciones de Psicología & Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal, 2017).

For this reason, it is necessary to become aware of these processes and how they have been in the scientific communication of our community. In this sense, it is pertinent to look at some of the diverse works regarding the psychology journals of the region in particular countries (Gallegos, 2010), such as the one of Polanco-Carrasco, Gallegos, Salas and López-López (2017) in Chile; the one of Visca, Gallegos, López-López, Polanco-Carrasco and Cervini (in press) in Argentina; the one of Tortosa et al. (in press) in Spain; and in Colombia, studies oriented to show the dynamics of some specific journals as Universitas Psychologica (Aguado-López, Becerril-García, & Aguilar-Bustamante, 2016), Psykhe (Salas et al., 2017), and Diversitas (Aguilar-Bustamante, & Aguado-López, 2018).

When we make a contrast between these publications, it is possible to check similarities and differences in the processes of continuous improvement like in editorial quality (production times), content quality (peer review), visibility (metrics of impact), diffusion (altmetrics), accessibility (web technologies) and management. In the region journals, clearly, these processes are completely related to the formation dynamics in research, mainly, in the incentives systems of institutions and researchers, in the quality accreditation systems of higher education institutions, and in the selection criteria of those who finance research. These complex knowledge ecosystem is subdue to the economic and sociopolitical dynamics in which the knowledge of the world is regulated and flows.

Certainly, becoming aware of the dynamics of our region journals should create precise and constructive criticism to the national and international assessment systems of journals and researchers, since some of these measures can lead to noxious practices, in which the righteous performs accomplished and the capital of knowledge achieved with such an effort in our countries are destroyed (to destroy journals is not only to break a name, it is to bury all the knowledge published in it). Finally, these balances should guide to make prospective analyses that allow recognizing the better practices and their future impact in the management and communication of knowledge.

References