1. Colloque Evolution des publications scientifiquesAcadémie des sciences, 14-15 mai 2007Pierre BraunsteinAcadémie des sciencesInstitut de Chimie (UMR 7177 CNRS)Université Louis Pasteur - Strasbourg Round Table Discussion Bibliometric Indicators in Research Evaluation and Policy

2. CHEMISTRY • Core chemistry • Numerous interfaces • chemistry/mathematics • chemistry/biology • Increasing number of international collaborations • The increasing number of journals leads to their selection according to some criteria (tradition, userfriendly submission process, rapidity, etc …) • The highest Impact Factor in chemistry is 20 (review articles) • The ranking of authors on a publication is highly variable

3. Do impact factors reflect what is important or what is fashionable ? • Areas in which much is published generate more citations and therefore higher impact factors • The period covered (2 years) is too short to be really significant (compare e.g. an article published in December of year N vs. January of year N+1. • The ISI classification « General » vs. « Specialized » journals is very far from being satisfactory. Any ranking based on this splitting is rather useless. • Total citations counts (or H factor = number of articles cited more than H times) provide a usefull image of the impact of the scientific contributions of an author, in particular a senior one (but remember the « cold fusion » effect!). However, since practices/numbers vary considerably from one discipline to another, comparisons become difficult/impossible at scientific interfaces.

4. Indicators can be useful, they will be used anyway, we better understand their meaning, strengths and weaknesses in order to improve the system. A European model? • A calibration system is required and various benchmarking procedures will minimize the misinterpretations • Indicators can assist in identifying performances within a similar area, at the national and international levels, particularly for more senior scientists (ex. 1000 most cited chemists). They have no absolute value. • Other criteria are needed to identify the younger, most promising scientists: key role of the community! • There must be feedback between the evaluators and the individuals or labs or institutions being evaluated to explain and communicate the source of indicators. This must be a multicriteria and transparent mechanism

5. BIBLIOMETRICS • BIBLIO MIXI CATORS