On citation number as a useless metric, a thread on my personal experience 1/7

I am 46 years old, and have been a professor for 10 years now. Like many senior scientists of my kind, I serve as associate editor for two journals in my field. I also participate regularly in grant panels and evaluated dozens of CVs in hiring committees. 2/7

My opinion has therefore influenced the peer-review process, the award of grants and the hiring opportunities of some of my colleagues. Arguably three cornerstones of academic success. 3/7

Peer-review: when I get a paper to edit, I look into the methods. I want to know what was done and how innovative that is. A neat and tidy result is cool, but I also admire papers who dare to address complex question with complex results. Citation metric do not play a role. 4/7

Grant panels: for a proposal, same thing, I look at the material and the methodological plans. Sure, I check the recent publication output of the applicant. My support will grow if the applicant published meaningful conclusive studies. Citation metrics? They play no role. 5/7

Hiring committees: you get to read many CVs and research statements. This is a *lot* of work. Citation statistics do not help find the smart and collegial colleague your institution needs. If they would, we would not need a committee. 6/7

In brief, I am a grown-up scientist; I base my opinion on scientific quality. And this is fortunate, because citation statistics lead to utter non sense, as the you-know-what-paper recently showed. 7/7