Increased reliance on impact factors to evaluate scientific merit is having negative social and environmental effects in Latin America. We should abandon these indicators and concentrate on strengthening regional and national journals and networks for socially and locally relevant research.

Impact-factor rankings have damaged the region for several reasons. Because impact factors are generally low for conservation and ecology articles (compared with those in, say, biotechnology or medicine), these disciplines attract proportionately less funding. Top-tier journals tend to focus on global environmental issues to boost citation rates, at the expense of regionally important ones. And theoretical-ecology journals have higher impact factors than applied-ecology journals.

Together, these metrics are diverting researchers away from regional problems even as socio-ecosystems deteriorate around them. The South American biogeographic region comprises 10% of Earth's surface and hosts 50% of its biodiversity, yet the continent contributed less than 4% of global scientific output in 2010 (see go.nature.com/hudjwn; in Spanish).

We suggest that Latin America should aim to achieve a genuine knowledge dialogue (see go.nature.com/ifrnlx; in Spanish) through confronting regional challenges, rather than focus on increasing its global “brain circulation” (Nature 490, 325; 2012).