If impact factor abandoned and don’t really reflect the quality of an individual researcher or academic, as mentioned in Article Impact factor abandoned by Dutch university in hiring and pr...
and h-index is no longer an effective approach to evaluate the scientific reputation, as mentioned in Article The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientifi...
What will be the next evaluation system for scientific quality and quality of individual researchers or academics.
“In an ideal world, evaluators would read each article and make personal judgments”. (Eugene Garfield, one of the founders of bibliometry/scientometry, see https://www.researchgate.net/post/Your_opinion_about_the_following_link) Peer review is an effective system to guarantee scientific quality, although it has its weakness (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_peer-review_itself_scientific). Methods to rank journals, papers and researchers by bibliometric numbers, assuming these would measure quality, is a wrong way.
See also this new discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Progressive_Inflation_Impact_Factor
Dear Wolfgang R. Dick ,
Good to have more discussion about this issue.
What do you think about a new indicator, named "Journal Citation Indicator, JCI" to assess the journal's performance?
and which indicators will be applied to evaluate the researchers' commitment?
I do not have a personal opinion about the new JCI (https://clarivate.com/blog/introducing-the-journal-citation-indicator-a-new-field-normalized-measurement-of-journal-citation-impact/). In general, I am very sceptical about an evaluation system for individuals based on bibliometry or generally on numbers.
Word embedding, self-reported novelty score, future citation impact were those mentioned in Article Measuring novelty in science with word embedding
I think JCI is a move in the right direction. IF values across different fields vary wildly, and it is not possible to compare journals from different fields for this reason. However, I am skeptical about a metric that is complicated and proprietary. I would prefer something that is more straightforward and documented, so that you can check the metric's correctness.
The impact factor evaluates journals and the Hirsch h index evaluates researchers.
Direct comparison of these two metrics is meaningless.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Impact Factor