When science is evaluated by bureaucrats and administrators, it is usually done by quantified performance metrics, for the purpose of economic productivity. Olof Hallonsten criticizes both the means (quantification) and purpose (economization) of such external evaluation. I share the concern that such neoliberal performance metrics are shallow, over-simplified and inaccurate, but differ in how best to oppose this reductionism. Hallonsten proposes to replace quantitative performance metrics with qualitative in-depth evaluation of science, which would keep evaluation internal to scientific communities. I argue that such qualitative internal evaluation will not be enough to challenge current external evaluation since it does little to counteract neoliberal politics, and fails to provide the accountability that science owes the public. To assure that the many worthy purposes of science (i.e. truth, democracy, well-being, justice) are valued and pursued, I argue science needs more and more diverse external evaluation. The diversification of science evaluation can go in many directions: towards both quantified performance metrics and qualitative internal assessments and beyond economic productivity to value science’s broader societal contributions. In addition to administrators and public servants, science evaluators must also include diverse counterpublics of scientists: civil society, journalists, interested lay public and scientists themselves. More diverse external evaluation is perhaps no more accurate than neoliberal quantified metrics, but by valuing the myriad contributions of science and the diversity of its producers and users, it is hopefully less partial and perhaps more just.
Detecting anomalous citation groups in journal networks