Bibliometric evaluation of individual researchers: not even right... not even wrong!

Abstract

bibliomEtriC EvaluatioN fEaturEs obody would suggest that the long-term artistic impact of contemporary writers, composers, painters, etc. should be assessed by using quantitative methods (number of books sold in bookshops, tickets in concerts, number of paintings, etc.).One would in this way get some information on the quality of the artistic production, but also mostly detect other characteristics of the productions, as well as fashions; the most creative artists, those who will remain famous for decades or centuries, would probably not emerge.Neither would anyone suggest evaluating quantitatively the efficiency of state officers by the number of administrative reports they write!Although scientific research is neither art nor administration, quantitative methods of evaluation of individual scientists suffer from the same problem: they contain some information, but with only a relatively small part that corresponds to scientific quality.e use of indices such as the H-index 1 at the level of individuals is easy and therefore attractive, but mostly unscientific.An even more serious problem is that the generalization of quantitative evaluation of research will create (and actually is already creating) perverse feedback effects, decreasing the quality of publications and therefore affecting the general functioning of research.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.