33 global researchers propose new framework to replace h-index and impact factor
A global consortium of 33 researchers from 14 countries proposes ditching flawed metrics...
A coalition of 33 leading researchers from 14 countries—including Junsuk Rho, Andrea Alù, Mark Brongersma, and Javier Garcia de Abajo—has published a perspective paper (arXiv:2509.12045) calling for a fundamental overhaul of how scientific research is evaluated. The authors argue that current reliance on standardized metrics like the h-index and journal impact factor incentivizes quantity over quality, undermining reproducibility and the cumulative build of knowledge. Despite progress in open knowledge and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles, evaluation practices remain misaligned.
The paper introduces an integrative 'open knowledge system' that treats knowledge production, validation, assessment, and reuse as a single ecosystem. It provides practical recommendations tailored to four stakeholder groups: researchers, institutions/evaluators, funders, and publishers. Key levers for cultural change include what to share, when and how to validate, how to support reuse, and what to reward. By shifting focus from papers and bibliometrics to reusable knowledge contributions, the framework aims to make high-quality, cumulative work visible and valued, offering a diagnostic tool for identifying misaligned incentives and guiding reform.
- 33 researchers from 14 countries co-authored the paper, including top names in photonics and materials science.
- Proposes an 'open knowledge system' framework linking production, validation, assessment, and reuse.
- Offers specific recommendations for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers to reward reusable contributions over publication volume.
Why It Matters
Could reshape research evaluation away from flawed metrics, boosting reproducibility and accelerating cumulative scientific progress.