In defense of quantitative metrics in researcher assessments is a research paper published in PLOS Biology (2023). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.827. It has been cited 33 times, with 21 citing works in its 1-hop citation network. Its calibrated FAIR score is 55/100.
Qualitative assessments of researchers are resource-intensive, untenable in nonmeritocratic settings, and error-prone. Although often derided, quantitative metrics could help improve research practices if they are rigorous, field-adjusted, and centralized.
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Calibrated FAIR score — a parallel quality metric, independent of the DataRank citation score. See the full evaluation →
Base Score Contribution
0.529
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0.298
From 10 citing papers with measurable signal
Ranked by citation count — the same ordering the engine uses when summing log1p(Cq) over citers.
DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 64% comes from its base citations and 36% from the citation network (10 citing papers contributed measurable signal).
Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.
Click a node to highlight its connections. Use scroll to zoom. Drag to pan.