DORA, Declaration on Research Assessment

小弟之前寫了一些文章，比如四年前的 '學術界的遊戲：impact factor'、三年前的'Impact Factor and Its Role in Academic Promotion'、去年的'在“科研指標”廢除後，SCI, Impact factor, Ranking 仍舊是研究者的共業'、以及今年的'Case Report 和 impact factor'，都是在敍述，使用 "Impact factor" 是多麼 "不科學"的事。

今年，連最科學的雜誌：Science，它的主編 Bruce Alberts也站出來，也在這次的「舊金山研究評論宣言」──San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment（DORA）一起反對使用了60多年的 Impact Factor，以及陳述了它對於研究環境的摧殘。

▲▲▲ 這是截圖自臉書上的文章

重點是，他們開完這個 DORA拜拜大會後，發表了18點聲明(原文詳情請看DORA網站)。我在這兒只貼出針對"給錢"的單位，以及給"老闆"的意見：

For funding agencies

2. Be explicit about the criteria used in evaluating the scientific productivity of grant applicants and clearly highlight, especially for early-stage investigators, that the scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published.
3. For the purposes of research assessment, consider the value and impact of all research outputs (including datasets and software) in addition to research publications, and consider a broad range of impact measures including qualitative indicators of research impact, such as influence on policy and practice.

For institutions

4. Be explicit about the criteria used to reach hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions, clearly highlighting, especially for early-stage investigators, that the scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published.
5. For the purposes of research assessment, consider the value and impact of all research outputs (including datasets and software) in addition to research publications, and consider a broad range of impact measures including qualitative indicators of research impact, such as influence on policy and practice.

當然，Impact Factor 最開始的始作俑者Thomson Reuters，也發表了他們的聲明，想當然耳，就是強調(ㄆ一ㄝˇ ㄑ一ㄥ)，任何的指標都有它的局限性，該公司沒有，也不能要求學術領域一定要使用它。

Keywords: Impact factor, me-too science, Thomson Reuters, 期刊點數, Ranking, 健保資料庫