On 2016 Nov 12, Martine Crasnier-Mednansky commented:

The statement by Vincent Detours "Our interest, as scientists and citizens, is to reject the totalitarian reduction of human activities to numbers, and adopt policies acknowledging the diversity of human talents and promoting individuals’ autonomy." is echoing the statement by Lewis Mumford "The test of maturity, for nations as well as individuals, is not the increase in power, but the increase of self-understanding, self-control, self-direction, and self-transcendence. For in a mature society, man himself and not his machines or his organizations is the chief work of art."

On 2016 Nov 09, Donald Forsdyke commented:

Marketing in science

In it ironic that Vincent Detours insightful analysis of the "managers" who outdo the "competent" comes at a time when the triumph of marketing over ability is so evident on the political scene. For any who might think this could not happen in science, two accounts of the career of Niels Jerne will perhaps provide helpful reading (1, 2).

1.Soderqvist T (2003) Science as Autobiograph: the Troubled Life of Niels Jerne (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven).

2.Eichmann K (2008) The Network Collective: Rise and Fall of a Scientific Paradigm (Birkhauser, Berlin).

On 2016 Nov 07, Vincent Detours commented:

Who wants to be a number?

Sinatra et al. present another metrics to predict scientific impact. Like their predecessors, they fail to discuss the wider consequences of (i) equating impact and scientific quality, and (ii) reducing scientists' activity to a number.

The number of times a paper is cited—the basic quantity behind impact metrics—is by essence a measure of popularity, not a direct measure of truth and novelty. Intelligent thinking together with the availability of resources required to work, effective communication and access to high circulation venues all contribute to popularity. Building impact often means less work in the lab and more networking with those in charge of science funding and dissemination, presence on social media, etc. In this context, the form of communication increasingly takes precedence over its content, aggravating the current reproducibility crisis.

Impact metrics routinely guide hiring and funding. It spares decision makers the hurdle and risk of exerting sound scientific judgment: they simply promote the most popular folks. It conveniently shortens debates arising from diverse expert viewpoints. And who can argue against it? Aren’t the winners ‘elected’ by the community? As a result, scientifically unremarkable managers gain control at the expense of competent active scientists and, incidentally, the riches get richer. Yet, the vast majority of scientists are loosing control over resources and over their own destiny, being herded to the same 'high-impact' topics, for example.

The proliferation of impact metrics, social networks ‘likes’ and other audience measures fuel the increasing tyranny of rankings in society. While alienating and isolating individuals in narcissism and permanent competition, rankings ultimately benefit those who aggregate information and control communication. Our interest, as scientists and citizens, is to reject the totalitarian reduction of human activities to numbers, and adopt policies acknowledging the diversity of human talents and promoting individuals’ autonomy.

On 2016 Nov 07, Vincent Detours commented:

Who wants to be a number?

Sinatra et al. present another metrics to predict scientific impact. Like their predecessors, they fail to discuss the wider consequences of (i) equating impact and scientific quality, and (ii) reducing scientists' activity to a number.

The number of times a paper is cited—the basic quantity behind impact metrics—is by essence a measure of popularity, not a direct measure of truth and novelty. Intelligent thinking together with the availability of resources required to work, effective communication and access to high circulation venues all contribute to popularity. Building impact often means less work in the lab and more networking with those in charge of science funding and dissemination, presence on social media, etc. In this context, the form of communication increasingly takes precedence over its content, aggravating the current reproducibility crisis.

Impact metrics routinely guide hiring and funding. It spares decision makers the hurdle and risk of exerting sound scientific judgment: they simply promote the most popular folks. It conveniently shortens debates arising from diverse expert viewpoints. And who can argue against it? Aren’t the winners ‘elected’ by the community? As a result, scientifically unremarkable managers gain control at the expense of competent active scientists and, incidentally, the riches get richer. Yet, the vast majority of scientists are loosing control over resources and over their own destiny, being herded to the same 'high-impact' topics, for example.

The proliferation of impact metrics, social networks ‘likes’ and other audience measures fuel the increasing tyranny of rankings in society. While alienating and isolating individuals in narcissism and permanent competition, rankings ultimately benefit those who aggregate information and control communication. Our interest, as scientists and citizens, is to reject the totalitarian reduction of human activities to numbers, and adopt policies acknowledging the diversity of human talents and promoting individuals’ autonomy.

On 2016 Nov 12, Martine Crasnier-Mednansky commented:

The statement by Vincent Detours "Our interest, as scientists and citizens, is to reject the totalitarian reduction of human activities to numbers, and adopt policies acknowledging the diversity of human talents and promoting individuals’ autonomy." is echoing the statement by Lewis Mumford "The test of maturity, for nations as well as individuals, is not the increase in power, but the increase of self-understanding, self-control, self-direction, and self-transcendence. For in a mature society, man himself and not his machines or his organizations is the chief work of art."