And why evaluations are not made based on a reading of each book?

The assessment of monographs should be the result of the reading and then assessment of the work by the evaluation committees. However, peer review is a process which requires a great deal of time, many resources and not without its problems. In a context such as the present one, scientific production is huge and evaluations are frequent, which makes it impracticable to carry out a content evaluation of all that is published, or even a selection of it. In this sense, indirect indicators may offer an approximate idea of the quality and relevance of each book.

Why another ranking?

The results obtained from our research aim at making more objective, or help to make more objective, the use of the indicator "editorial prestige" to which evaluation agencies refer. The increasing pressure on researchers to publish, the proliferation of all kinds of rankings and, above all, the lack of trajectory of the evaluation of book publishers make it advisable to be cautious when using these results.

With the current state of great sensitivity among lecturers and researchers regarding evaluation processes and the lack of precedents in book evaluation, utilizing a ranking system becomes a delicate matter, as the tendency is to compare the position occupied by a publisher with that of another ─causing criticism of the system as a consequence─, instead of using more general data which indicate that there is a group of publishers who are well considered by the scientific community compared with others who are less prestigious..

"No map can substitute the region which has been mapped, but at the same time […] a well plotted chart simplifies the itinerary"

Tomás Granados Salinas. Director of the collection Libros about books belonging to the Fondo de Cultura Económica, in a note from the Manual de edición literaria y no literaria