By: Adam Łomnicki
Send to a friend
The details you provide on this page will not be used to send unsolicited email, and will not be sold to a 3rd party. See privacy policy.
Over the past decades, various quantitative measures have been developed to evaluate the
productivity of individual scientists or scientific groups, most based on the extent to which
their published papers are cited by other researchers. One of the most widely used of these are
so-called ‘impact factors’ – essentially a measure of scientific impact that is based on citation
rates, but also takes into account the significance of the journals in which results have been
published.
The use of such quantitative measurements has been widely criticised in the scientific
community. Many point out that they fail to take into account factors other than scientific
publications that should be used to evaluate the work of an individual scientist. Others resent
the extent to which impact factors and similar measures, despite their weaknesses, have come to
play a dominant role in allocating research funds.
In this letter to Nature, Adam Łomnicki from Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland
admits that the system is “wrong and unjust”. But he argues that, just like the market economy,
other systems are worse. Furthermore he suggests that the use of impact factors by developing
countries is essential if they are to develop an effective scientific community. Abandoning such
“objective” measures of science evaluation, he argues, “would remove a tool for rewarding
researchers who attempt to do good science and for eliminating those who do not”.
Reference: Nature 424, 487 (2003)