Las instituciones importan en las actividades de innovación: un análisis bibliométrico
Palabras clave:
Resumen
La participación de los gobiernos en las actividades de innovación no se limita exclusivamente a la implementación de políticas de apoyo a la I+D. Dado que los avances tecnológicos se desarrollan en un marco institucional y de negocios determinado, en última instancia, un papel clave de los gobiernos en este proceso consiste en la creación de un entorno adecuado que promueva los incentivos necesarios para que la generación de conocimiento sea posible y que, posteriormente, los desarrollos científicos derivados sean adoptados eficazmente por parte de las empresas. En este contexto, este artículo busca contribuir a la literatura sobre las relaciones entre instituciones e innovación mediante un análisis bibliométrico para el período 1990-2021. Los resultados muestran cómo, aunque el contexto institucional ha recibido cada vez más atención, quedan aún por desarrollar líneas de investigación relevantes, particularmente las relacionadas con el papel de las instituciones informales como posibles moderadoras de estos procesos.
Descargas
Altmetrics
Citas
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power. Prosperity, and Poverty. New York, NY: Crown.
Akcigit, U. (2024). The Innovation Paradox. Finance and Development, September, 32-35.
Alhusen, H., & Bennat, T. (2021). Combinatorial Innovation Modes in SMEs: Mechanisms Integrating STI Processes into DUI Mode Learning and the Role of Regional Innovation Policy. European Planning Studies, 29 (4), 779-805. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1786009
Altomonte, C., Aquilante, T., Békés, G., & Ottaviano, G. I. (2013). Internationalization and innovation of firms: evidence and policy. Economic policy, 28(76), 663-700. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0327.12020.
Asheim, B. T., & Coenen, L. (2005). Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research policy, 34(8), 1173-1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.013.
Autant-Bernard, C., Fadairo, M., & Massard, N. (2013). Knowledge diffusion and innovation policies within the European regions: Challenges based on recent empirical evidence. Research policy, 42(1), 196-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.07.009.
Becker, B. (2015). Public R+D policies and private R+D investment: A survey of the empirical evidence. Journal of economic surveys, 29(5), 917-942. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12074.
Benford, J. (2023). Cohesion Policy’s Blind Spot – Strong Regional Institutions are Crucial to Implementing Effective Growth Strategies on the Ground. Global & European Dynamics. Recuperado de https://globaleurope.eu/ europes-future/cohesion-policys-blind-spot-strong-regional-institutions-are-crucial-to-implementing-effective-growth-strategies-on-the-ground/.
Bianchini, S., Müller, M. and Pelletier, P. 2022. Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention. Research Policy, Volume 51, Issue 10, 104604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104604
Boekholt, P. (1996). Financing innovation in the post–subsidy era–public support mechanisms to mobilise finance for innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 12(7-8), 760-768. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.1996.025514.
Boyd, E., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2011). Adapting institutions: governance, complexity and social-ecological resilience. Cambridge University Press.
Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280.
Capdevila, I., & Zarlenga, M. I. (2015). Smart city or smart citizens? The Barcelona case. Journal of Strategy and Management, 8(3), 266-282. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-03-2015-0030.
Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C. and Nijkamp, P. (2009) Smart Cities in Europe. In Proceedings of the 3rd Central European Conference in Regional Science—CERS 2009, Kosice, 7-9 October 2009, 49-59.
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation, and environment relate to each other? International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.4018/jsesd.2010010105.
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. In Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems: 21st-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development (pp. 1-63). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2062-0_1
Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of innovation and entrepreneurship, 1, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2.
Charron, N., Dijkstra, L., Lapuente, V. (2014) Regional governance matters: quality of government within European Union member states. Regional Studies, 48: 68-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.770141.
Cincera, M., Czarnitzki, D., & Thorwarth, S. (2009). Efficiency of public spending in support of R+D activities. Reflets et perspectives de la vie économique, 50(1), 131-139. https://doi.org/10.2765/33949.
Cobo, M. J. (2012). SciMAT: herramienta software para el análisis de la evolución del conocimiento científico. Propuesta de una metodología de evaluación. Granada: Universidad de Granada.
Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011a). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, vol. 5, nº 1, pp. 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOI.2010.10.002
Cobo, M. J., López‐Herrera, A. G., Herrera‐Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011b). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382-1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525.
Cobo, M. J., López‐Herrera, A. G., Herrera‐Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2012). SciMAT: A new science mapping analysis software tool. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1609-1630. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22688.
Conte, A., Schweizer, P., Dierx, A., & Ilzkovitz, F. (2009). An analysis of the efficiency of public spending and national policies in the area of R&D (MPRA Paper No. 23549). University Library of Munich, Germany.
Coulter, N., Monarch, I., & Konda, S. (1998). Software engineering as seen through its research literature: A study in co‐word analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(13), 1206-1223. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1998)49:13<1206::AID-ASI7>3.0.CO;2-F.
Dankbaar, B. (1998). Technology management in technology-contingent SMEs. International Journal of Technology Management, 15(1-2), 70-81. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.1998.002598.
De la Mothe, J. (2004). The institutional governance of technology, society, and innovation. Technology in Society, 26(2-3), 523-536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2004.01.009.
De Saille, S. (2015). Innovating innovation policy: the emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(2), 152-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2015.1045280.
Delgado, E., & Repiso, R. (2013). El impacto de las revistas de comunicación: comparando Google Scholar Metrics, Web of Science y Scopus. Comunicar, 21(41), 45-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C41-2013-04.
Dimos, C., & Pugh, G. (2016). The effectiveness of R+D subsidies: A meta-regression analysis of the evaluation literature. Research Policy, 45(4), 797-815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.002.
Dodgson, M., Hughes, A., Foster, J., & Metcalfe, S. (2011). Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: The case of Australia. Research Policy, 40(9), 1145-1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.015.
Doloreux, D., & Parto, S. (2005). Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and unresolved issues. Technology in society, 27(2), 133-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.01.002.
Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Labini, M.S. (2006). The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy, 35(10),1450–1464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.012.
Draghi, M. (2024). The Future of European Competitiveness, European Commission, Bruselas.
Edquist, C. (2011). Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: identification of systemic problems (or failures). Industrial and corporate change, 20(6), 1725-1753. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtr060.
Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (1999). Systems of innovation: theory and policy for the demand side. Technology in society, 21(1), 63-79. https://doi.org/10/cq85rk.
Edquist, C., & Johnson, B. (1997). Institutions and organizations in systems of innovation. In: Edquist, C. (ed.) Systems of Innovation. Technologies, Institutions and Organizations (pp. 41-63). London, UK: Printer.
Engerman, S.L., & Sokoloff, K.L. (1997), Factor Endowments, Institutions, and Differential Paths of Growth among New World Economies. Stanford, CA: Stanford.
European Commission (2024a). European Innovation Scoreboard 2024. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/779689.
European Commission (2024b). Science, research and innovation performance of the EU 2024: A competitive Europe for a sustainable future. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/965670.
Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., & Verspagen, B. (2009). The evolution of Norway's national innovation system. Science and Public Policy, 36(6), 431-444. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X460944.
Feldman, M. P. (1993). An examination of the geography of innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2(3), 451-470. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/2.3.451.
Foray, D. (2014). From smart specialisation to smart specialisation policy. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(4), 492-507. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-09-2014-0096.
Fromhold-Eisebith, M. (2007). Bridging scales in innovation policies: How to link regional, national and international innovation systems. European Planning Studies, 15(2), 217-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310601078754.
Furtado, A. T., Scandiffio, M. I. G., & Cortez, L. A. B. (2011). The Brazilian sugarcane innovation system. Energy Policy, 39(1), 156-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.023.
Gao, H., Ding, X. H., & Wu, S. (2020). Exploring the domain of open innovation: Bibliometric and content analyses. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 122580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122580.
García-Ochoa Mayor, M., Bajo Davó, N., & Blázquez de la Hera, M. L. (2012). La innovación tecnológica como variable determinante en la competitividad de los países. Revista de Economía Mundial, 31, 137-166.
Gertler, M. S. (2010). Rules of the game: The place of institutions in regional economic change. Regional Studies, 44(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903389979.
Glückler, J., & Bathelt, H. (2017). Institutional context and innovation. In The Elgar companion to innovation and knowledge creation. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782548522.00015.
González-Valiente, C. L., Costas, R., Noyons, E., Steinerová, J., & Šušol, J. (2021). Terminological (di) similarities between information management and knowledge management: a term co-occurrence analysis. Mobile Networks and Applications, 26(1), 336-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-020-01643-y.
González, X., & Pazó, C. (2008). Do public subsidies stimulate private R+D spending? Research Policy, 37(3), 371-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.10.009.
Grundey, D., Toluba, B., Pilinkus, D., & Verbauskienė, L. (2008). The role of institutional policy in developing innovative entrepreneurship in Lithuania. Transformations in Business & Economics, 7(14).
Gu, S. & Lundvall, B-Å., (2006). Policy Learning as a Key Process in the Transformation of the Chinese Innovation Systems. In B-Å. Lundvall, P. Intarakumnerd, & J. Vang (Eds.), Asia's Innovation Systems in Transition (pp. 293- 312). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Guan, J., & Chen, K. (2012). Modeling the relative efficiency of national innovation systems. Research policy, 41(1), 102-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.001.
Haider, S., & de Pablos Heredero, C. (2012). Determinants of R&D cooperation: An institutional perspective. Revista de Economía Mundial, (32), 239-257.
Hekkert, M. P., Janssen, M. J., Wesseling, J. H., & Negro, S. O. (2020). Mission-oriented innovation systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, 76-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.011.
Huang, C., Amorim, C., Spinoglio, M., Gouveia, B., & Medina, A. (2004). Organization, programme and structure: an analysis of the Chinese innovation policy framework. R&D Management, 34(4), 367-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2004.00347.x.
Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research policy, 32(9), 1555-1568. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00024-6.
Jacobsson, S., & Bergek, A. (2011). Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: Contributions and suggestions for research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.04.006.
Kirat, T., & Lung, Y. (1999). Innovation and proximity: territories as loci of collective learning processes. European Urban and Regional Studies, 6(1), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/096977649900600103.
Koschatzky, K., & Sternberg, R. (2000). R+D cooperation in innovation systems—some lessons from the European Regional Innovation Survey (ERIS). European Planning Studies, 8(4), 487-501. https://doi.org/10.1080/713666415.
Kraemer-Mbula, E. and S. Wunsch-Vincent (eds) (2016). The Informal Economy in Developing Nations: Hidden Engine of Innovation? Cambridge and Geneva: Cambridge University Press and World Intellectual Property Organization.
Langford, C. H., Hall, J., Josty, P., Matos, S., & Jacobson, A. (2006). Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? Research policy, 35(10), 1586-1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.021.
Leiponen, A. (2005). Skills and innovation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23(5-6), 303-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.03.005.
Liu, F. C., Simon, D. F., Sun, Y. T., & Cao, C. (2011). China's innovation policies: Evolution, institutional structure, and trajectory. Research Policy, 40(7), 917-931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.005.
Maier, D., Maier, A., Așchilean, I., Anastasiu, L., & Gavriș, O. (2020). The relationship between innovation and sustainability: A bibliometric review of the literature. Sustainability, 12(10), 4083. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104083.
Malecki, E. J. (1991). Technology and economic development: the dynamics of local, regional, and national change. New York: Longman Scientific & Technical.
Marques, P., & Morgan, K. (2018). The heroic assumptions of smart specialisation: A sympathetic critique of regional innovation policy. In New avenues for regional innovation systems-theoretical advances, empirical cases and policy lessons (pp. 275-293). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71661-9_14.
McCann, P., & Ortega-Argiles, R. (2013). Modern regional innovation policy. Cambridge journal of regions economy and society, 6(2), 187-216. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rst007.
Méndez, R. (1998). Innovación tecnológica y reorganización del espacio industrial: Una propuesta metodológica. EURE (Santiago), 24(73), 31-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0250-71611998007300002.
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.
Moral-Pajares, E., Cobo-Martín, M. J., Caviedes-Conde, Á. A., & Gallego-Valero, L. (2023). Análisis temático y conceptual de la Revista de Economía Mundial mediante SciMAT. Revista de Economía Mundial, 65, 141-167. https://doi.org/10.33776/rem.vi65.7946.
Morgan, K. (1997) The Learning Region: Institutions, Innovation and Regional Renewal. Regional Studies, 31, 491-503. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409750132289.
Morgan, K. (2017). Nurturing novelty: Regional innovation policy in the age of smart specialisation. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(4), 569-583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16645106.
Nelson, R. R., & Nelson, K. (2002). Technology, institutions, and innovation systems. Research Policy, 31(2), 265-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00140-8.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678.
North, D. C. (1993). Institutions and Credible Commitment. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 149 (1): 11–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40751576.
Peters, B. G. (2019). Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2019-0024.
Peters, B. G., & Zittoun, P. (2016). Contemporary approaches to public policy. Theories, controversies and perspectives. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50494-4.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887.
Pinkus, D., Pisani-Ferry, J., Tagliapietra, S., Veugelers, R., Zachmann G., & Zettelmeyer, J. (2024). Coordination for competitiveness. Study requested by the ECON committee, European Parliament.
Rai, A. K. (2003). Engaging facts and policy: A multi-institutional approach to patent system reform. Colum. L. Rev., 103, 1035. https://doi.org/10.2307/1123832.
Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Hohberger, J. (2016). A bibliometric review of open innovation: Setting a research agenda. Journal of product innovation management, 33(6), 750-772. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12312.
Ranga, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society. Industry and Higher Education, 27(4), 237-262. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2013.0165
Ribeiro, L. C., Rapini, M. S., Silva, L. A., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2018). Growth patterns of the network of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 114, 159-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2573-x.
Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Do institutions matter for regional development? Regional Studies 47(7), 1034–1047. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.748978.
Rodríguez-Pose, A., Belso-Martinez, J. A., & Díez-Vial, I. (2021). Playing the innovation subsidy game: Experience, clusters, consultancy, and networking in regional innovation support. Cities, 119, 103402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103402.
Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Di Cataldo, M. (2015). Quality of government and innovative performance in the regions of Europe. Journal of Economic Geography, 15(4), 673-706. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbu023.
Rodríguez, M. J., de Sousa, V. M., & Rodeiro, D. (2020). The Effect of Good Governance on Business Creation: A Multilevel Approach, Revista de Economía Mundial, 54, 21-42. https://doi.org/10.33776/rem.v0i54.3825.
Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2004). Institutions rule: the primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. Journal of Economic Growth, 9(2), 131-165. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOEG.0000031425.72248.85.
Rogers, G., Szomszor, M., & Adams, J. (2020). Sample size in bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 125(1), 777-794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03647-7.
Rolfstam, M. (2009). Public procurement as an innovation policy tool: the role of institutions. Science and public policy, 36(5), 349-360. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X442025.
Sachs, J. D., & Warner, A. M. (2001). The curse of natural resources. European Economic Review, 45(4-6), 827-838. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00125-8.
Sternberg, R., & Arndt, O. (2001). The firm or the region: what determines the innovation behavior of European firms? Economic geography, 77(4), 364-382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2001.tb00170.x.
Tagliapietra, S., & Veugelers, R. (Eds). (2023). Sparking Europe’s New Industrial Revolution: A policy for net zero growth and resilience. Bruegel Blueprint series.
Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203-1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.018.
Uyarra, E. (2010). What is evolutionary about ‘regional systems of innovation’? Implications for regional policy. Journal of evolutionary economics, 20(1), 115-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-009-0135-y.
Van Beers, C., Berghäll, E., & Poot, T. (2008). R+D internationalization, R+D collaboration and public knowledge institutions in small economies: Evidence from Finland and the Netherlands. Research Policy, 37(2), 294-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.10.007.
Van Oorschot, J. A., Hofman, E., & Halman, J. I. (2018). A bibliometric review of the innovation adoption literature. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 134, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.032.
Vázquez-Barquero, A. (2010). New Forces Of Development, The: Territorial Policy For Endogenous Development. World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/7430
Vázquez-Barquero, A. & Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C. (2016). Endogenous development and institutions: Challenges for local development initiatives. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(6), 1135-1153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15624924.
Veugelers, R. (2024). An Innovation-Based Industrial Policy for the EU. Intereconomics, 59(5), 254-261. https://doi.org/10.2478/ie-2024-0052
Visser, E. J., & Atzema, O. (2008). With or without clusters: Facilitating innovation through a differentiated and combined network approach. European Planning Studies, 16(9), 1169-1188. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310802401573.
Weber, M. (2012). La ética protestante y el espíritu del capitalismo. Madrid, España: Península.
Woolthuis, R. K., Lankhuizen, M., & Gilsing, V. (2005). A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, 25(6), 609-619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2003.11.002.
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2024). Global Innovation Index 2024: Unlocking the Promise of Social Entrepreneurship. Geneva: WIPO. https://doi.org/10.34667/tind.50062.
Young, B., Hewitt-Dundas, N., & Roper, S. (2008). Intellectual Property management in publicly funded R+D centres—A comparison of university-based and company-based research centres. Technovation, 28(8), 473-484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.02.004.
Zeng, J., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Ren, J. (2021). Innovation efficiency: a bibliometric review and future research agenda. Asia Pacific Business Review, 27(2), 209-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2021.1858591.
Zheng, C., Deng, F., Zhuo, C., & Sun, W. (2022). Green credit policy, institution supply, and enterprise green innovation. Journal of Economic Analysis, 1(1):3, https://doi.org/10.58567/jea01010002.
Derechos de autor 2025 Creative Commons (CC-BY)
Esta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0.
Los artículos enviados para su evaluación en REM habrán de ser originales, no haber sido publicados con anterioridad, totalmente o en parte, tanto en otras revistas como en cualquier medio de difusión (incluyendo cualquier página web de acceso público), ni aceptados para su publicación, ni encontrarse en proceso de evaluación en otros medios de difusión. En caso de que un artículo sometido a evaluación no sea original, REM se reserva el derecho a no aceptar para su evaluación más artículos de sus autores. Una vez que los artículos comienzan el proceso de revisión, el derecho a imprimirlos y difundirlos corresponde a REM (tanto del artículo completo como partes del mismo, si REM considera que son partes sustanciales). El reconocimiento de este derecho se entiende implícito en la decisión del autor de someter el artículo a evaluación por REM. Estos derechos vuelven al autor en caso de que el artículo sea rechazado.
REM permite el acceso abierto completo a todos los contenidos publicados, lo que supone que todos los artículos estarán disponibles a los usuarios inmediatamente después de su publicación. El uso y distribución no comercial de los mismos está permitido siempre que se cite la autoría y fuente.
Los contenidos de REM se rigen bajo licencia Creative Commons (CC-BY).
Todas las personas que han trabajado en el artículo deben aparecer como autores del mismo; y todos los autores deben haber realizado una contribución sustancial al mismo. Además, todos los autores deben estar de acuerdo con el orden en que aparecen sus nombres. En caso de disconformidad de algún autor con cualquiera de estos requisitos, REM se reserva el derecho a no publicar el artículo incluso estando aceptado para su publicación.
