Novel citation-based indices exacerbate privilege gaps in academic publishing

Matthew Roy Kerr , André Michael Bellvé , Emma-Liina Marjakangas 

An undeniable fact of modern academia is that it is metric-driven, a landscape in which researchers are narrowly defined by their publication output and citations. The demand for simple methods for defining our output has led to many popular citation-based metrics, used as shorthand for academic output both at higher levels of funding and day-to-day assessments. Despite the flaws being highlighted in scientific discourse, there are continued proposals for additional metrics to measure and assess scholarly productivity. We argue that the problems with existing citation-based metrics cannot be solved with the addition of more indices. Instead, this practice only serves to widen existing academic privilege gaps. Academia should instead be exploring alternative pathways for recognizing scientific contributions.