We discuss the trend towards using quantitative metrics for evaluating research. We claim that, rather than promoting meaningful research, purely metric-based research evaluation schemes potentially lead to a dystopian academic reality, leaving no space for creativity and intellectual initiative. After sketching what the future could look like if quantitative metrics are allowed to proliferate, we provide a more detailed discussion on why research is so difficult to evaluate and outline approaches for avoiding such a situation. In particular, we characterize meaningful research as an essentially contested concept and argue that quantitative metrics should always be accompanied by operationalized instructions for their proper use and continuously evaluated via feedback loops. Additionally, we analyze a dataset containing information about computer science publications and their citation history and indicate how quantitative metrics could potentially be calibrated via alternative evaluation methods such as test of time awards. Finally, we argue that, instead of over-relying on indicators, research environments should primarily be based on trust and personal responsibility.

中文翻译：

---

什么是有意义的研究，我们应该如何衡量它？

我们讨论了使用定量指标来评估研究的趋势。我们声称，纯粹基于度量的研究评估计划可能会导致反乌托邦的学术现实，而不是促进有意义的研究，而不会为创造力和智力主动性留下空间。在勾勒出如果允许量化指标激增的未来会是什么样子之后，我们将更详细地讨论为什么研究如此难以评估，并概述了避免这种情况的方法。特别是，我们将有意义的研究描述为一个本质上有争议的概念，并认为定量指标应始终伴随着正确使用的操作说明，并通过反馈循环不断评估。此外，我们分析了一个包含有关计算机科学出版物及其引用历史信息的数据集，并指出了如何通过替代评估方法（例如时间奖励测试）来校准定量指标。最后，我们认为，研究环境不应过度依赖指标，而应主要基于信任和个人责任。