Are Article and Journal Metrics a Good Thing?

This submission has open access
Submission Summary
How should universities evaluate scientific research? This paper critically assesses the quantitative approach to the evaluation of scientific outputs based on publication metrics. First, I provide an overview of the standard indicators, such as Impact Factor and h-index. Secondly, I show that one limitation of the metrics system is that it lacks adequate criteria to distinguish research fields that should be kept separate for evaluative purposes. Finally, I claim that this limitation negatively affects the use of such metrics. In particular, it risks to hinder the development of normal science in a Kuhnian sense in some of such fields.
Submission ID :
PSA2022455
Submission Type
Submission Topic

Associated Sessions

Similar Abstracts by Type

Submission ID
Submission Title
Submission Topic
Submission Type
Primary Author
PSA2022514
Philosophy of Biology - ecology
Contributed Papers
Dr. Katie Morrow
PSA2022405
Philosophy of Cognitive Science
Contributed Papers
Vincenzo Crupi
PSA2022481
Confirmation and Evidence
Contributed Papers
Dr. Matthew Joss
PSA2022440
Confirmation and Evidence
Contributed Papers
Mr. Adrià Segarra
PSA2022410
Explanation
Contributed Papers
Ms. Haomiao Yu
PSA2022504
Formal Epistemology
Contributed Papers
Dr. Veronica Vieland
PSA2022450
Decision Theory
Contributed Papers
Ms. Xin Hui Yong
PSA2022402
Formal Epistemology
Contributed Papers
Peter Lewis
99 visits