General
General discussion group to be used if no other group can cover the topics of discussion
Latest posts
Pradeep Eranti
Call for Articles on Science Communication – MCAA Newsletter December 2025 Special Issue
Fernanda Bajanca
Survey on unethical issues in academia
Pradeep Eranti
call for pitches "Open science" newsletter
Lidia Natalia Trusilewicz
The International Centre for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE) seeks candidates for MSCA-PF-2024 Fellowship Program!
For those who are reviewing...
1
min
read
May 27, 2015
For those who are reviewing papers, please consider ‘Publon.com’ (http://www.nature.com/news/the-scientists-who-get-credit-for-peer-review-1.16102). I think it is a nice initiative. We might see the r(review)-index soon…
1 Comments
Christoph
Haug
May 27, 2015
Interesting. Thanks for posting this. I'm not sure whether yet another metric is to the benefit of scholars. If this becomes a standard, it just means more work in less time for us. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against metrics per se. But the current obsession with metrics serves primarily one purpose: to allow administrators who have no clue about our respective fields of research to exercise increasing control over our work (which they could not do to the same extent of they did not have metricsto judge our work).
As an alternative, I'd suggest looking at the potentials of the slow scholarship movement (I just learned about it today).
Cheers,
Christoph