用引文分析的数据来评价科学贡献的做法在近二十年来饱受批评。2012年12月16日，一群学术期刊编辑与出版商在the Annual Meeting of The American Society for Cell Biology in San Francisco, CA, USA上达成了《旧金山宣言》，一共18条，转载并粗糙翻译如下：

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment

基本原则：General recommendation

1）不使用基于期刊的指标去评价单篇文章的质量、单个科学家的贡献，或在招聘、晋升和资助的决策中使用。

Do not use journal-based metrics, such as journal impact factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion or funding decisions.

2-3条针对资助：For funding agencies

2）明确用于评价资助申请人的科学生产力的标准，明确强调论文的科学内容远远比期刊的计量数据或发表期刊的地位更重要，尤其是对职业生涯早期的研究者而言。

Be explicit about the criteria used in evaluating the scientific productivity of grant applicants and clearly highlight, especially for early-stage investigators, that the scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published.

3）为了达到评价目的，除了发表的正式研究成果，也要考虑所有研究成果（包括数据集、软件）的价值和影响力，并考虑更广泛的影响力评价方法，应该包括一些定量指标，比如评价其对政策、生产实践的影响力。

For the purposes of research assessment, consider the value and impact of all research outputs (including datasets and software) in addition to research publications, and consider a broad range of impact measures, including qualitative indicators of research impact such as influence on policy and practice.

4-5条针对机构：For institutions

4）明确用于达成聘用、任期和晋升决策的标准，明确强调论文的科学内容远远比期刊的计量数据或发表期刊的地位更重要，尤其是对职业生涯早期的研究者而言。（类似第2条）

Be explicit about the criteria used to reach hiring, tenure and promotion decisions, clearly highlighting, especially for early-stage investigators, that the scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published.

5）同第3条。

6-10条针对出版商：For publishers
6）极大地减少、最好是停止宣传期刊影响因子，或者将它与一系列的期刊评价指标（5年影响因子、特征因子、SCImago、h指数、编辑及出版时间等）一起提供一个更丰富的期刊表现视图。

Greatly reduce the emphasis on the journal impact factor as a promotional tool, ideally by ceasing to promote the impact factor or by presenting it in the context of a variety of journal-based metrics (e.g. 5-year impact factor, EigenFactor, SCImago, h-index, editorial and publication times, etc.) that provide a richer view of journal performance.

7）提供一系列的论文级指标，以鼓励转向基于论文科学内容的评估，而不是基于期刊的评价指标。

Make available a range of article-level metrics to encourage a shift towards assessment that is based on the scientific content of an article rather than on the publication metrics of the journal in which it was published.

8）鼓励作者署名负责，并提供每一名作者的专业贡献。

Encourage responsible authorship practices and the provision of information about the specific contributions of each author.

9）无论一个期刊是开放获取或收费订阅，移除所有对重新使用文献、列入参考文献表的限制，并使它们符合知识共享协议。

Whether a journal is open-access or subscription-based, remove all reuse limitations on reference lists in research articles and make them available under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication licence.

10）移除或减少对研究论文的参考文献数量的限制，并在适当的情况下强制引用原始文献，以支持评论，并给予首次发现成果的小组以认可。

Remove or reduce the constraints on the number of references in research articles and, where appropriate, mandate the citation of primary literature in favour of reviews in order to give credit to the group(s) who first reported a finding.

11-14条针对提供指标的组织：For organisations that supply metrics

11）公开透明，提供所有的计算数据及方法。

Be open and transparent by providing data and methods used to calculate all metrics.

12）无限次地提供数据，并在可能的情况下提供对数据的计算访问。

Provide the data under a licence that allows unrestricted reuse, and provide computational access to data, where possible.

13）明确不允许不适当的指标操作；明确什么构成不当操纵，以及将采取什么措施来打击这种行为。

Be clear that inappropriate manipulation of metrics will not be tolerated; be explicit about what constitutes inappropriate manipulation and what measures will be taken to combat this.

14）当使用、汇总或比较指标时，说明文章类型的变化(例如，评论与研究文章)，以及不同主题领域的变化。

Account for the variation in article types (e.g. reviews versus research articles), and in different subject areas when metrics are used, aggregated or compared.

15-18条针对研究人员：For researchers

15）当参与委员会制定有关资金、招聘、任期或晋升的决策时，应根据科学内容而非出版标准进行评估。

When involved in committees making decisions about funding, hiring, tenure or promotion, make assessments based on scientific content rather than on publication metrics.

16）在适当的情况下，引用原始文献而非综述，给予作者应有的认可。

Wherever appropriate, cite primary literature in which observations are first reported rather than reviews in order to give credit where credit is due.

17）在个人/支持性陈述中可以使用一系列文章指标和指标，以作为个人发表文章和其他研究成果影响的证据。

Use a range of article metrics and indicators in personal/supporting statements as evidence of the impact of individual published articles and other research outputs.

18）挑战不适当地依赖期刊影响因素的研究评估实践，推广和教授注重于专业研究成果价值和影响的最佳实践。

Challenge research assessment practices that rely inappropriately on journal impact factors, and promote and teach best practice that focuses on the value and influence of specific research outputs.

2015年，《Nature》上发表《莱顿宣言》。参见Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., and Rafols, I. (2015) ‘Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics.’ Nature. 520, 429-431. doi:10.1038/520429a

搬运一个翻译，转载自weibo@国际科学编辑：

The Leiden Manifesto

第一，量化的评估应当支持而非取代质化的专家评审

1) Quantitative evaluation should support qualitative, expert assessment.

第二，科研绩效的考量应基于机构、团队、以及个人的科研使命

2) Measure performance against the research missions of the institution, group or researcher.

第三，保护卓越的本地化的相关研究

3) Protect excellence in locally relevant research.

第四，保持数据采和分析过程的公开、透明和简单

4) Keep data collection and analytical processes open, transparent and simple.

第五，允许被评估者验证数据和分析

5) Allow those evaluated to verify data and analysis.

第六，考虑发表和引用的学科差异

6) Account for variation by field in publication and citation practices.

第七，对个人研究的评价应基于其综合作品的质性评价

7) Base assessment of individual researchers on a qualitative judgement of their portfolio.

第八，应避免评估指标的不当的具体性和虚假的精确性

8) Avoid misplaced concreteness and false precision.

第九，识别认清评价指标对科研系统的影响

9) Recognize the systemic effects of assessment and indicators.

第十，定期审查评价指标并加以改进

10) Scrutinize indicators regularly and update them.

发布于 2020-02-22

学术论文  论文   科学引文索引（SCI）