It is fun to imagine songwriters being assessed as scientists are today. Bureaucrats would rank their songs by which radio stations played them in the first two weeks after release. The songwriters would soon find that writing junky Christmas tunes and cosying up to top DJs advanced their careers more than composing proper music. It is not so funny that in the real world of science, dodgy evaluation criteria, such as impact factors and citations, are dominating minds, distorting behaviour and determining careers. Indeed, these measures have now grown into monsters that threaten science. Already, they have produced an “audit society” in which scientists are forced to put meeting the measures above trying to understand nature and disease.

Scientists are assessed according to the impact factors of the journals they publish in. Of course, there is some correlation between quality of work and the impact factor of the journal that publishes it, but this measure has many faults. Crucially, impact factors are distorted by positive feedback — many citations are not based on reading the paper but by reading other papers, particularly reviews. Consider the 48 citations of one article I co-authored in 2002: only eight were appropriate to what was actually reported, three were plain wrong and 37 were incidental. Thus citations may generally be determined more by visibility than by content. Now there is a new trend: scientists are ranked by a single number, the “H index,” that counts their papers and the citations they receive. In consequence, I predict that citation-fishing and citation-bartering will become major pursuits.

These measures have had many effects. First, it is now very common for people to gatecrash their names on to author lists for papers whose contents they are largely a stranger to, perhaps by providing a reagent, through horse-trading between group leaders or by the misuse of authority or power.

Second, it is now vital to get papers into high impact-factor journals; just one such paper can change the prospects of a postdoc from nonexistent to substantial. This fact has cut a swath through scientific thinking, turning our thoughts away from scientific problems and towards the process of publication. Grisly stories of papers bouncing down a cascade of journals are now the main dish of scientific discourse. It is not unusual for a scientist to spend as much as a year trying and retrying to get something published in a “vanity” journal. This is a massive waste of time and energy that, even so, can bring career rewards. Therefore, I would like granting agencies to investigate the time that leaders of the groups that they fund spend on this paper chase.

Third, trying to meet the measures involves changing research strategy: it is best to follow fashion and work in crowded halls — if you venture into the unknown, you risk interesting no one, and publication will be difficult.

Fourth, scientists learn to hype their work, making a story more simple and sensational by ignoring or hiding awkward results.

Fifth, these measures push people into larger groups, all of whose papers are authored by the group leader — the more people, the more papers. However, I suspect that an increased proportion of young scientists fail in large groups but, because no account is taken of this, such failures do not make a group leader look less productive. In an attempt to increase the number of papers, students are being treated more like technicians and so miss out on learning how to become researchers.

Sixth, it becomes essential to go travelling, to network and build tacit webs of mutual support among colleagues, some of whom will review your papers. It is no wonder that many successful scientists spend bizarre amounts of time touring.

Seventh, the struggle to survive in modern science has acted against modest and gentle people of all kinds — yet there is no evidence that less pushy people are less creative. As the less aggressive people are predominantly female, it should be no surprise that there has been little increase in the representation of women at the top.

The main villains are fashion, the management cult and the politics of our time. People have lost sight of the primary purposes of institutions, and a growing obsession with internal processes has driven more and more bureaucracy at the expense of research. But scientists of all ranks are also to blame, as we have meekly allowed this to happen. We need to fight back, raise awareness of the problems and make changes locally. For example, appointment committees should remember that they are not hiring a number, but a person with a mix of abilities, of which originality is the most important. We need a code of ethics and a means to enforce it, especially with regard to publication. A public discussion on what justifies authorship would be a good start.

There are also difficulties with the assessment of manuscripts: anonymous referees who murder papers for gain should be held to account. One possible approach might be for the large granting agencies to set up an ombudsman, to whom those wronged by maladministration could appeal. It is time to help the pendulum of power swing back to favour the person who works at the bench and tries to discover things.

Peter A. Lawrence is a researcher in the zoology department at Cambridge University and the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, UK. This commentary is adapted from his article in the August 7, 2007 issue of Current Biology and is available at http://www. mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/PAL/ pdf/mism_science.

This article first appeared in the 24 August 2007 edition of the Times Higher Education Supplement. Reprinted with permission.

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily CAUT.

Commentary: CAUT welcomes articles between 800 and 1,500 words on contemporary issues directly related to post-secondary education. Articles should not deal with personal grievance cases nor with purely local issues. They should not be libellous or defamatory, abusive of individuals or groups, and should not make unsubstantiated allegations. They should be objective and on a political rather than a personal subject. A commentary is an opinion and not a “life story.” First person is not normally used. Articles may be in English or French, but will not be translated. Publication is at the sole discretion of CAUT. Commentary authors will be contacted only if their articles are accepted for publication. Commentary submissions should be sent to Liza Duhaime.

Les opinions exprimées sont celles des auteurs et ne reflètent pas nécessairement la position officielle de l’ACPPU.

Commentaires destinés à la rubrique Tribune libre : L’ACPPU invite les lecteurs à soumettre des articles de 800 à 1 500 mots qui portent sur des questions d’actualité liées directement à l’enseignement postsecondaire. Les articles ne doivent traiter ni de dossiers de griefs particuliers ni de questions d’intérêt strictement local. Ils ne doivent pas comporter des allégations non fondées ni des propos diffamants, calomniateurs ou offensants envers des personnes ou des groupes. Les articles doivent être empreints d’une objectivité totale et aborder des sujets de nature politique plutôt que personnelle. Un commentaire est avant tout l’expression d’une opinion et non pas le « récit d’une vie ». Il convient normalement de le formuler à la première personne. Les articles peuvent être soumis en français ou en anglais, mais ils ne seront pas traduits. L'ACPPU se réserve le droit de choisir les articles qui seront publiés. La rédaction ne communiquera avec les auteurs de commentaires que si elle décide de publier leurs articles. Les commentaires doivent être envoyés à Liza Duhaime.