At least in my country, I'm thankful for these quantitative measurements, that difficult corrupt practices: Oh, I assure you he's a great researcher, just not in any measurable way. He's my nephew you say? Well, that's not the point...

While this is important, in many fields their are cliques of related researchers (1) on the grants committees and (2) on the journal committees. These people know who works on which problems, so blind review is a farce.

Also, the concept of IF being a proxy for rigorous review and work quality is weak at best. Just read a few pages of http://retractionwatch.com/

Couldn't you just require people to recuse themselves from hiring decisions involving relatives?

Particularly for early career people, I suspect most of these "quantitative" measurements are basically reflecting where and wtih whom you worked.

There's also less nepotistic problems. For example, I've moved between different sides of the same overall field several times. That means, for any given reader of my CV, only about half the "impressive" papers read to them as impressive using most subjective measures.

> Couldn't you just require people to recuse themselves from hiring decisions involving relatives?

They used to have this nice trick where you hired the son of your friend and your friend hired your son. But at least now there are some non-subjective requirements to be met before anyone can get admitted.

This seems like it would be fixable with a fairly small amount of money, relatively speaking: offer something like $250K for the most important papers that would otherwise be published in Nature to instead be published in an open-access journal. After all of the major papers for several months are published in open access journals and the most well-known journals are reduced to publishing only the dregs that are left, opinion could change quite quickly. Sustain this type of payment for a couple of years and I'd bet there would be a sizable number of other people publishing open-access, since to be published in Nature would imply that your paper wan't important enough to be offered the $250K reward.

(Disclaimer: I used to work in this field at biomedcentral.com)

Or just make Science OA. Unlike Nature and Cell, it's published by a non-profit (the American Association for the Advancement of Science). In principle, the American government could just give them money to make everything freely accessible. Or the publishers could ask authors to pay publication fees with waivers for those unable to pay, like most OA journals. Since the goal of the AAAS is (at least theoretically) to publish papers and not to make a profit, the fees need not be much higher than other OA journals. Given the average Science paper probably costs something like $1 million to produce, I doubt the authors would balk at paying a few thousand to make their work accessible to everyone.

If you had any kind of realistic measure to identify "important papers that would otherwise be published in Nature" then the problem would be already solved, since all the evaluation criteria could look at that instead of the journal ratings. However, we do not - currently the only actually usable way to identify "important papers that would otherwise be published in Nature" is simply asking "has this research been published in Nature?"

Yes, they are pointless and arbitrary metrics.

Competition for positions in academia has gotten so bad that it doesn't matter. Like Google rejecting perfectly good candidates just because they can, but in Academia even south central Kansastucky state university has enough excellent applicants that arbitrary metrics do more good than harm.

We don't necessarily need OA. Nature allows you to publish your papers on the arxiv. If all papers are on the arxiv, and with the journal, the negotiation position of the journals goes away.