Academic sell-out: how an obsession with metrics and rankings is damaging academia
Academic sell-out: how an obsession with metrics and rankings is damaging academia
复制标题
学术卖空：对指标和排名的痴迷如何损害学术界
DOI：
10.1080/08841241.2014.970248
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Thorsten Gruber
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Thorsten Gruber
越来越多的学者必须证明他们的研究具有学术影响力。大学通常使用期刊排名和期刊影响因子来评估个别学者的研究影响。最近，个别文章的引用数和h指数也被用来衡量学术界的学术影响。然而，依靠期刊排名、期刊影响因子和引用数存在一些严重的问题。例如，没有任何影响的文章可以发表在高排名的期刊或高影响因子的期刊上，而高影响的文章可以发表在低排名的期刊或低影响因子的期刊上。引用数也很容易被玩弄和操纵，h指数对早期职业学者不利。本文讨论了这些问题和其他几个问题，并提出了诸如出版后同行评议和开放获取期刊等替代方案。
Increasingly, academics have to demonstrate that their research has academic impact. Universities normally use journal rankings and journal impact factors to assess the research impact of individual academics. More recently, citation counts for individual articles and the h-index have also been used to measure the academic impact of academics. There are, however, several serious problems with relying on journal rankings, journal impact factors and citation counts. For example, articles without any impact may be published in highly ranked journals or journals with high impact factor, whereas articles with high impact could be published in lower ranked journals or journals with low impact factor. Citation counts can also be easily gamed and manipulated, and the h-index disadvantages early career academics. This paper discusses these and several other problems and suggests alternatives such as post-publication peer review and open-access journals.