Could we measure science outcome in papers and printed symbols? (Commenting on Tatyana Zakharchuk’s article)

Abstract

The author analyzes why science outcomes in the library and information sector is assessed through quantitative factors (number of publications and their total volume) rather than by the actual contribution to the science; why in some cases it is enough for some publications to be published and, which is most importantly, be included into the Russian Science Citation Index though they are far from being scientific. The author argues that we lack assessment tools to evaluate achievements in science, and it’s almost impossible to publish a paper in foreign periodicals; the criteria to classify a work as a scientific or research paper are lacking, too.