The metrics maze in science: navigating academic evaluation without journalistic pressures

In recent years a troubling trend has emerged in the medical research field, notably in reproductive medicine, manifesting an increased emphasis on quantity over quality in articles published.

The pressure to collect copious publication records risks compromising meticulous expertise and impactful contributions. This tendency is exemplified by the rise of ‘hyper-prolific researchers’ publishing at an extraordinary rate (i.e. every 5 days), prompting a deeper analysis of the reasons underlying this behaviour. Prioritizing rapid publication over Galileo Galilei's systematic scientific principles may lead to a superficial approach driven by quantitative targets. Thus, the overreliance on metrics to facilitate academic careers has shifted the focus to numerical quantification rather than the real scientific contribution, raising concerns about the effectiveness of the evaluation systems. The Hamletian question is: are we scientist or journalist? Addressing these issues could necessitate a crucial re-evaluation of the assessment criteria, emphasizing a balance between quantity and quality to foster an academic environment that values meaningful contributions and innovation.