The case of eLife, a life science journal, shows that Open Science is not an easy task and can generate many open questions and uncertainties in the assessment of research. eLife drastically changed its peer review procedure this year, for example, by revoking editorial decisions for acceptance and rejection of a manuscript. Perhaps disciplines focusing on individual assessment, such as psychology or medicine, could give some perspectives on how to deal with uncertainty in research assessment. A broader set of information is necessary that includes peer review ratings and a set of bibliometric indicators beyond the classical citation impact indicators. The quality of information in terms of reliability, validity, and fairness should be explicitly taken into account.
The Swiss Year of Scientometrics gains momentum with the second lecture
On October 11, 2023, the second lecture in the series “Swiss Year of Scientometrics” took place at ETH Zurich. Over 50 participants gathered on a sunny autumn afternoon to listen to Professor Emanuel Kulczycki’s lecture on “Reframing scientometrics: How ontological understanding of science influences what we count and how we interpret it”. A video recording … Read more