Sobre os editores científicos

[…] Proponents of count‐based evaluation argue that only good papers get into the “best” journals, and there is no need to read them again. Anyone with experience as an editor knows there is a tremendous variation in the seriousness, objectivity, and care with which referees perform theirs task. They often contradict one another and make errors themselves. Many editors don’t bother to investigate and resolve; they simply compute an average score and pass the reviews to the author. Papers rejected by one conference or journal are often accepted (unchanged) by another. Papers that were initially rejected have been known to win prizes latter, and some accepted papers turn out to be wrong. Even careful referees and editors review only one paper at a time and may not know that an author has published many papers, under different titles and abstracts, based on the same work. Trusting such a process is folly. […] [p. 19–20]

[…] Sadly, the present evaluation system is self‐perpetuating. Those who are highly rated by the system are frequently asked to rate each other and others; they are unlikely to want to change a system that gave them their status. Administrators often act as if only numbers count, a probability because their own evaluators do the same. […] [p. 21]

DAVID LORGE PANAS. Stop the numbers game: counting papers slows the rate of scientific progress. In: Viewpoint. p. 19–21. In: Communications of the ACM. v. 50. n. 11. dez. 2007. Disponível em: <>. Acesso em: 19 fev. 2008.



%d blogueiros gostam disto: