In the current evaluation system, it’s no longer just about quantity and bibliometric indicators—which sometimes led certain teams to pursue unfortunate strategies, such as producing an excessive number of publications in predatory journals with questionable peer-review standards. Today, much greater emphasis is placed on the quality of the journal and the article itself. Evaluations also take into account the author’s position within the team, making it possible to assess a scientist’s contribution more objectively. Of course, no evaluation system is ever perfect, but based on my experience on panels of grant agencies such as the Czech Science Agency and the ERC, I can say there’s a strong effort to ensure fair and thorough assessments of both researchers and proposals. Scientists should strive to remain independent of evaluation mechanisms and focus instead on understanding and describing the core of the problem they are investigating, to the best of their ability.
In the past, I considered the introduction of the Open Access model to be a major mistake, as it led to the proliferation of so-called predatory publishers and journals. These entities profit significantly from Open Access publication fees, often publishing work after insufficient or even completely dubious peer review. From my perspective, this represents one of the most serious issues and distortions in the scientific environment. I wish such a model had never been introduced—and now, I can only hope that the consequences of its implementation can be mitigated by emphasizing the importance of quality over quantity.
Sharing scientific information is clearly a way to use tax payers’ money more effectively and accelerate progress in science and research. What’s crucial is ensuring equal access for all scientists to these infrastructures so that researchers from prestigious institutions or countries are not disproportionately favored while others are left behind.
