BACKGROUND: Research rankings based on bibliometrics today dominate governance in academia and determine careers in universities. METHOD: Analytical approach to capture the incentives by users of rankings and by suppliers of rankings, both on an individual and an aggregate level. RESULT: Rankings may produce unintended negative side effects. In particular, rankings substitute the "taste for science" by a "taste for publication." We show that the usefulness of rankings rests on several important assumptions challenged by recent research. CONCLUSION: We suggest as alternatives careful socialization and selection of scholars, supplemented by periodic self-evaluations and awards. The aim is to encourage controversial discourses in order to contribute meaningful to the advancement of science.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 134 citations exist upstream.