Madhan Muthu, Gunasekaran Subbiah, Arunachalam Subbiah
DST Centre for Policy Research, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru 560012, Karnataka, India.,
CSIR-Central Electrochemical Research Institute, Karaikudi 630003, Tamil Nadu, India.,
Indian J Med Ethics. 2018 Jul-Sep;3(3):221-229. doi: 10.20529/IJME.2018.024. Epub 2018 Mar 23.
The evaluation of performance in scientific research at any level - whether at the individual, institutional, research council or country level - is not easy. Traditionally, research evaluation at the individual and institutional levels has depended largely on peer opinion, but with the rapid growth of science over the last century and the availability of databases and scientometric techniques, quantitative indicators have gained importance. Both peer review and metrics are subject to flaws, more so in India because of the way they are used. Government agencies, funding bodies and academic and research institutions in India suffer from the impact factor and h-index syndrome. The uninformed use of indicators such as average and cumulative impact factors and the arbitrary criteria stipulated by agencies such as the University Grants Commission, Indian Council of Medical Research and the Medical Council of India for selection and promotion of faculty have made it difficult to distinguish good science from the bad and the indifferent. The exaggerated importance given by these agencies to the number of publications, irrespective of what they report, has led to an ethical crisis in scholarly communication and the reward system in science. These agencies seem to be unconcerned about the proliferation of predatory journals and conferences. After giving examples of the bizarre use of indicators and arbitrary recruitment and evaluation practices in India, we summarise the merits of peer review and quantitative indicators and the evaluation practices followed elsewhere.
对任何层面的科学研究绩效进行评估都并非易事，无论是在个人、机构、研究理事会还是国家层面。传统上，个人和机构层面的研究评估很大程度上依赖同行评议，但随着上个世纪科学的迅速发展以及数据库和科学计量技术的出现，定量指标变得愈发重要。同行评议和指标都存在缺陷，在印度情况更是如此，因为它们的使用方式存在问题。印度的政府机构、资助机构以及学术和研究机构深受影响因子和h指数综合症的困扰。对平均影响因子和累积影响因子等指标的盲目使用，以及大学拨款委员会、印度医学研究理事会和印度医学委员会等机构为教师选拔和晋升规定的任意标准，使得区分优秀科学与劣质及平庸科学变得困难。这些机构对出版物数量给予了过高的重视，而不论其内容如何，这导致了学术交流和科学奖励体系中的道德危机。这些机构似乎对掠夺性期刊和会议的泛滥漠不关心。在列举了印度指标的怪异使用以及任意招聘和评估做法的例子后，我们总结了同行评议和定量指标的优点以及其他地方遵循的评估做法。
