The Thomson Reuters’ Essential Science Indicators (ESI) has become a de facto analytical criterion for policymakers of academic-industrial communities to profile and benchmark primary research figures institutionally, since it was first established in 2001.
However, universal reliability and availability of the prevalent ESI-based metrics is conventionally understood as nominal rather than substantial yet, especially being used to assessment of individual scientific achievement (AISA). Sometimes, such empirical extrapolated theories based on sole and imperfect information source (Web of Science, WoS) always turns out knowledge illusions.
The fundamental limitation is that Thomson Reuters is not a scholarly institution, but a news agency. Hence, they rate someone as he currently stands, but what if his research became "hot" 20 years from now? And what if current "hot" research becomes obsolete overnight, or - god forbid - turns out to be fake, as has happened even at the highest level? All these ratings are nonsense.
- Badges
- Science topic