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.
First lecture on 07 June 2023 – Opportunities and challenges of scientometrics: diversification of data sources and applications
The first lecture on “Opportunities and challenges of scientometrics: diversification of data sources and applications” will take place on 07 June 2023 at ETH Zurich (Campus Zentrum, Leonhardstrasse 21, 8092 Zürich, LEE E 101), followed by the first workshop on the following day. We are extremely pleased to welcome Dr Stefanie Haustein as a speaker. Dr … Read more
Promoting the responsible use of scientometrics in Switzerland
Whether we like it or not, scientometric indicators and data are inevitably important for assessing the research performance of countries, institutions, departments, research groups and individual researchers. This not only applies to the science landscape of international research, but also to higher education institutions (HEI) in Switzerland. Correct usage of these indicators and data requires proper contextualisation and interpretation; however, they are often used inappropriately. Careless use of these indicators and data is problematic as it can lead to misinterpretation and ultimately to poor decisions.