This important (albeit lengthy) open access paper underscores. an important point we have been making recently, the current approach to researcher metrics is flawed and inaccurate. Even more troubling is the degree to which it is encouraging questionable research behaviour, including the publication of poor research with questionable publishers. We need an approach that evaluates and celebrates responsible research practices.
This paper advances the debate on scholarly publishing and the role of bibliometric indices in evaluating authors and their research, through a theoretical discussion and an empirical case study focused on economics and the impact factor. The rationale of the current bibliometric system is that reputation, assessed by citation figures, can be converted into an objective measure. We instead argue that it provides questionable results, because it fails to properly consider the meaning of indicators built for different purposes, as well as the psychological bias generated by the wrong interpretation of those indicators. However, the potential for abating these distortions exists.
Publisher (Open Access): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mde.3486