Beyond journal metrics: Why it’s time to embrace more meaningful methods of research assessment
- 2025-09-17 10:45
- 11:45
- Room: 81/R-003B - Science Gateway Auditorium B
- Speaker:
- Fiona Hutton, , Fiona Hutton is eLife’s Head of Publishing. Originally a research scientist, in 2001, while working as a postdoctoral researcher at Columbia University, Fiona signed the open letter to scientific publishers that called for a freely accessible library of published research and scholarly discourse in medicine and the life sciences. She then transitioned to work in science publishing, initially as Editor of Trends in Biochemical Sciences (TiBS), before holding positions at Wiley and then Cambridge University Press, as Head of STM OA Publishing & Executive Publisher. During this time, Fiona conceptualised a range of open-access publishing titles and series including Cambridge Prisms and Research Directions – on the foundations of open research principles. With a passionate belief that publishers have to evolve to maintain relevance and purpose within the scientific community, Fiona joined eLife in April 2022, bringing her expertise to the organisation as it moved towards launching the eLife Model for publishing. Fiona is an active member of the community and also sits on the Board of Directors of OASPA and the Steering Group of DORA. , eLife, https://elifesciences.org/, UK
With the increasing popularity of preprints, there are ongoing discussions among the research community about the need to apply peer review to help readers navigate new findings. eLife adopted such an approach in 2023, when we launched our model for publishing. The outputs are Reviewed Preprints, which include the original preprint, public reviews and an eLife Assessment that conveys the significance of the findings and strength of evidence, allowing readers to judge the research based on its own merits rather than where it is published.
Due to our efforts to challenge the status quo in publishing, our indexing status in Web of Science changed last year, meaning eLife no longer receives an Impact Factor. This was followed by concerns that eLife papers would no longer count toward funding or career progression opportunities. We therefore spoke to funders and institutions globally to better understand their position, and reported that 95% of respondents still consider eLife papers when evaluating research contributions. Our conversations highlighted that there is less consideration for the Impact Factor than perceived by the research community, and signalled broad support for more open science practices – showing that it’s time to move away from journal metrics in favour of more transparent and meaningful methods of assessment.
In this session, we will talk more about eLife Assessments, our conversations with the community and why it’s time to embrace innovative approaches to research assessment that better serve science and scientists. We also invite further discussion and participation from the audience.