News

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 a...

Consensus reporting is valuable because it allows scientists to speak with one voice and offer the most robust scientific evidence when interfacing with policymakers. However, what should we do when consensus does not exist? In this paper, I argue that we should not always default to majority reporting or consensus building when a consensus does no...

Recent science funding policy scholars and practitioners have advocated for the use of lotteries, or elements of random chance, as supplementations of traditional peer review for evaluating grant applications. One of the primary motivations for lotteries is their purported openness to innovative research. The purpose of this paper is to argue that ...