BACKGROUND: Research rankings based on bibliometrics today dominate governance in academia and determine careers in universities. METHOD: Analytical approach to capture the incentives by users of rankings and by suppliers of rankings, both on an individual and an aggregate level. RESULT: Rankings may produce unintended negative side effects. In particular, rankings substitute the "taste for science" by a "taste for publication." We show that the usefulness of rankings rests on several important assumptions challenged by recent research. CONCLUSION: We suggest as alternatives careful socialization and selection of scholars, supplemented by periodic self-evaluations and awards. The aim is to encourage controversial discourses in order to contribute meaningful to the advancement of science.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Osterloh et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: