2017/01/27 by Michaël Bon, Bon, Michaël, Michael T. Taylor +3
Computer Science · Decision Sciences · #68-02 #Digital Libraries (cs.DL) #FOS: Computer and information sciences #H.3.7 #H.5.3 #Research Data Management Practices #Scientific Computing and Data Management #scientometrics and bibliometrics research
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1701.08008
openalex publication_date 2017/01/27 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
Scientific evaluation is a determinant of how scientists, institutions and funders behave, and as such is a key element in the making of science. In this article, we propose an alternative to the current norm of evaluating research with journal rank. Following a well-defined notion of scientific value, we introduce qualitative processes that can also be quantified and give rise to meaningful and easy-to-use article-level metrics. In our approach, the goal of a scientist is transformed from convincing an editorial board through a vertical process to convincing peers through an horizontal one. We argue that such an evaluation system naturally provides the incentives and logic needed to constantly promote quality, reproducibility, openness and collaboration in science. The system is legally and technically feasible and can gradually lead to the self-organized reappropriation of the scientific process by the scholarly community and its institutions. We propose an implementation of our evaluation system with the platform "the Self-Journals of Science" (www.sjscience.org).