Are the methods for evaluating scientists the best way for understanding their capabilities and the quality of the science they are developing? Number of publications, number of citations, h-index, amount of money, paper metrics. All these numbers should resume our career. What about the quality of our research? The reality is that these numbers are going against quality and integrity. For publishing a higher number of papers the researchers are pushed to publish the minimum requested in any single paper dedicating time to write “original copies” of the same paper except the section of the results. The reviewers of my last two papers suggested me to split each of them in two different articles! Too many results for a single paper … unbelievable.
One article has value one, high impact factor or not the value is still the same so instead of revising the paper most of the time it is easier to look for a journal more compliant. It happened several times that I rejected a paper or I requested major changes and a couple of months later I have found it published in another journal in its original version! For this reason a lot of easy journals were born in the last years publishing anything in change of the fee payment. Groups of scientists are constituted for co-authoring and/or for co-citing papers, increasing their h-index. People asking to add their name to your paper because they have the office next to you, supervisors forcing students/fellows to add random names to the author list … it is a jungle.
How much and how long can we trust on this research?