KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Current academic metrics can be manipulated, leading to unethical practices, such as self-citation and citation cartels.
• The addition of clinical guidelines and Bluesky tracking to the Altmetric Attention Score could help drive a cultural shift toward recognising genuine forms of research impact.

A recent article by Dan K Pearson on the London School of Economics’ Impact of Social Sciences blog sheds light on the growing concern over the gamification of academic metrics. Pearson highlights how the pressure to publish in high-impact journals has led to unethical practices, such as excessive self-citation, citation cartels, and even the emergence of a citation black market where researchers can purchase citations to boost their profiles.

The pressure to publish creates an environment where researchers focus on quantifiable outputs rather than the actual outcomes and societal impacts of their work.

This environment encourages researchers to focus on quantifiable outputs rather than the actual outcomes and societal impacts of their work. Pearson argues that this system not only undermines the integrity of academic research but also discourages public engagement and collaboration. He suggests a cultural shift is needed whereby impact-oriented activities, such as public outreach, are emphasised over citation counts.

Two recent developments to the Altmetric platform could address this need by better reflecting the real-world applications of scholarly work. As reported by Research Information, Altmetric now tracks citations in clinical guidelines, providing insights into how research informs clinical practice and patient care. This addition allows researchers and institutions to assess the practical applications of medical research, thereby informing funding decisions and publication strategies.

Altmetric has also expanded its tracking to incorporate Bluesky, a social media platform favoured by the research community. This inclusion offers a more comprehensive view of research conversations, helping to understand the broader engagement and influence of research.

By embracing these developments and promoting wider recognition of scholarly contributions, the academic community can move beyond the pitfalls of gamified metrics and toward a more authentic assessment of research impact.

————————————————–