Editing Science Publishing DAO (section)

=== Biblio- and Sciento- metrics ===
In the highly competitive world of academic research, scientists are forced to play the publisher’s game to survive as scientists. The h-index and impact factor (IF) of the journals are key elements of a scientist’s CV. The result is that '''researchers learn to game metrics by maximizing citations by getting published in major journals. This in turn has led to collusion: situations where, for instance, professors agree to cite each other’s papers as much as possible (citation rings), p-hacking, paper mills, etc.'''

Bibliometrics is the field of metrics used for analysis of publications and their properties. In science, it is a discipline in and of itself.  Neither IF nor the h-index are respected metrics by the bibliometric community and, at this point, most of the scientific community; yet these “invalid indicators” continue to be used. In the present moment, university presidents and managers are generally more concerned about “branding” and the endless search for funding than adhering to academic principles and values. Attracting students and making money are no small tasks. '''''But keeping up with the rhetoric surrounding the globalization of the university market has kept administrators (non-scientists) busy and generally less attentive to the nuances of the metrics used to evaluate and hire their STEM professors'''''. '''Administrators are using the culture’s current obsession with rankings and reductive composite single figures – simple for prospective students to digest – to direct the perceived meaning of these invalid indicators to a preferred narrative.''' However, though bureaucrats maintain some blame, the proliferation of the h-index has largely been a grassroots phenomenon. A deeper psychosocial analysis involves looking at the reasons why the prestige economy is perpetuated by scientists themselves, and providing the right tools to replace it.