We celebrate the 104th anniversary of the Medical Service Corps. I am extremely proud of our Medical Service Corps officers serving around the world. I am proud to serve alongside our Medical Service Corps team. We are here to thank all of our Medical Service Corps soldiers for their service, their commitment to our nation, and for showing pride in the patch. We cannot support our soldiers without all of the expertise that make up the Corps. I thank all of the officers for your commitment, your dedication, and your service to your nation. Your leadership has driven many of the efforts and initiatives that continue to ensure the success of Army Medicine. Whether it is your contributions to COVID-19 response or deploying around the world, the Corps enables Army Medicine to succeed. We thank the Corps for being ready and relevant, and for modernizing and reforming operational medicine. Army Medicine is Army Strong.


So now we are going to start the roundtable. I'm going to ask some questions to our speakers and then I invite you to ask your own questions, okay? Okay, Steve, let me ask you first. We have seen a very easy and a very clear interface in Kudos. Yes, it's quite good. You present and just show different capabilities to share content on most of the social web platforms, academics, not academics. It also offers a lot of metrics and my question is, if we work with Kudos, can we personalize this tool to create for example indicators, new metrics, something like this? Yeah, great question. So obviously different people use different metrics for different reasons. Is my microphone on? Can you hear me okay at the back here? So yeah, some people are using web of science citations. Some people are using Google scholar citations. Some people are using Google scholar citations, you know, and for different reasons. And of course, the actual data of the citations or mentions in altmetric or something else called plum analytics, which Elsevier has just purchased, you know, could be used in different contexts. Practically speaking though, we can't offer every single metric, partially because there's commercial considerations to be had here. So we can do a deal with Thompson Reuters or Clarivate analytics as they're called now for web of science. And we can do a deal with altmetric.com to show the altmetric data. But if we do that, then of course we're really precluding ourselves from being able to also display the scopers data or the plum analytics data. So we've gone ahead and we've chosen altmetric and web of science to work with. But what I would say is that any promotional work that you do through kudos, you should be able to see the positive effects of that in other metrics in those particular platforms. So hopefully that answers your question. Thank you very much. Okay. Well, let me come now to Karen Ismail. This is a question for both of you. Well, you both suggest in your presentation that scientific impact is not only about the quantity of sites or publication, but also about practical research and social impact. Do you consider that the current model most focused on metrics is having effects in the research that we do about the topics, speech, dissertation models? A small easy question. First of all, in REF terms, impact wasn't necessarily about the quantifiable. Some fields used it more than others. But it was entirely possible in our field. For instance, one of the case studies from my own institution was based around archival research. One of my colleagues has been doing over a number of years about an Arcadian filmmaker, Margaret Tate. And she had discovered quite a lot of Tate's work that hadn't been previously available. She'd made it available through film festivals. She'd secured the preservation of that material in archives. And she'd contextualized it intellectually in a number of conferences and publications. And that case study did well. That was a good case study. So there's perfectly possible to have a case study that shows a cultural benefit, cultural impact, archival impact, if you like, rather than something that's numbers driven. One of my real concerns about the use of metrics because of the kind of work that I do is that there has certainly not in the UK been an anywhere near adequate discussion of what this means for different kinds of research, and particularly the kinds of research that might actually result in an awful lot of online abuse. And so we're all endlessly being told, promote your research via Twitter, do this, do that. If you work in certain areas of feminist media studies, that's not necessarily the wisest thing to do. If you work on issues to do with gender-based violence, as I do, and your institution is constantly saying, it's all about the number of clicks, the number of clicks. Actually, I don't particularly want men's rights activists clicking on my work, controlling me on Twitter. I do want my work to be read by the key people who make policy in the area. So it's not about numbers, it's about the targeting of reach. So for me, some of the altmetric stuff is really, really worrying for certain sectors of our field. And if universities do want to adopt it, they need to do it ethically, and they need to do it in a way that shows that they're actually looking after their researchers. And I'd be interested to know what's happening here around that. You know, I think if universities have social media policies, for instance, they also need sort of support attached to that. I'd just like to say I fully support what Karen has said there. We certainly would always have a sort of user warning guide, let's say, on Kudos. It doesn't always make sense to use it. And of course, the field that you're working in is not the only discipline which would fall into that category. So of course, I mean, use Twitter, use Kudos, use it with caution. If it doesn't make sense to use it, then of course, don't use it. If I understood well the question, the question is whether impact is more than just scientific impact, and whether the current evaluation practices are favoring certain types of outcomes. Okay, so actually, I think that's an interesting question in the Catalan and Pompeo Fabra context. I do believe indeed, although we have to say we don't have hard evidence on this, we have anecdotal evidence, that there's been a shift in what people publish and how they publish it because of evaluation practices. And from anecdotal evidence, there seems to be the case that some of the topics have been shifted towards topics in which you can publish. And this can go from things like somebody working on some chemical which is secreted by the excrements of goats in Andalusia, moving to a topic that is of which, you know, this you cannot publish in international journals, to publishing in, you know, some sort of chemistry that you can publish in international journals, under the succinct type of individual evaluation in Spain. Or moving from, you know, it seems that even Canadian economies cannot publish on Canadian economics, they have to publish on U.S. economics because it's the only way to get into top journals. So that's a problem, imagine even for English speaking Canadians. So it seems to be a very serious problem in terms of the topics shifting in academia. And there are many grounds to believe that indeed part of the community might have shifted to less, to research which is less engaged with societal problems. This is less clear, but something that might happen. And here in the Catalan context, which is I have to say something that I don't know very well, there's been the perception that there's been a fantastic increase in the quality of the research because the metrics say that Catalonia is doing very well. Here I would like to invite, I don't know what is the good way to value this, but I would like to compare Catalonia, well I'd like to see a comparison between Catalonia and the Basque country. The Basque country has a research system which is much more focused on helping the local actors, particularly local industrial actors. Whereas in Catalonia the focus has been on excellence in international leagues. Now I think it's a debate that we need to have here whether this competition in the international leagues in which Catalonia is doing very well for Southern European context is something that has had bad effects in terms of engagement with local actors, stakeholders. And whether this has had also effects in terms of the type of research so has this meant that there is less research on issues which are related to equity, to issues which are related to the local environment. I don't know what is the answer, but I think it is a debate that so far I have not seen and that I think should be done. For example, in the case of the Pumpeo Fabra, whose Department of Economics is internationally renowned, is that research related to the local policies, it related to the local practices? I don't know, but I think we should look into it. Thank you very much. There were a lot of provoking answers. It's quite interesting. Okay, my last question for speakers is in Spanish. The question is for Emilio and also for Ismael. The presentation you have done seems to be experiencing a clear evolution in the way in which science is being evaluated. Until not many years ago, when we looked at the data that Google Scholar offered, we gave them criteria, but very little criteria compared to the data that Google Scholar offered. This has changed very recently. Now, every time Google Scholar has more relevance in the scientific community, it seems that Scopus, at least in the field of social sciences, as it has more representation, has more and more relevance. Maximus Ponente, I think it would be there, the implementation of manifestos like Delayden Manifesto. How do you think it will affect, because you have finished both with the same question, more or less, how do you think it will affect, this is a bit controversial, all this to the future of scientific publications, and you also believe in the future of the academic career. But thinking about this conference, how does all this affect the future of scientific publications? Well, I think there is absolute co-incidence in all the members of the table, that evaluation practices condition the publication practices. This is a clear thing. I think politicians know it. They do something and that has effects. Consequently, the adoption of one evaluation model to another is what is going to condition everything. Those evaluation models make that Q2 is here. Because its objective is that the investigation has more impact and researchers have more reputation. I was just asking Ismael, is that the objective of the investigation? Or is the investigation really at the service of society and the transformation of society? I always think that the basic investigation in the end transforms society, otherwise it would not be done. But we see two radically different models. The British model has always been a model based on peer review. It has been said to us here that the impact has fallen, but it is an impact on the environment. I agree. You just made the formulation in economics that this university lights up internationally. And what impact did you ask? Does it have in its environment? We can ask Mr. Mascolel, who has been Minister of Economy in Catalonia. I mean, it does not only look like Boston, but it also looks like here. I'm making a joke, and I'm almost ridiculing the situation. I mean, I agree with the British model. What really matters is the impact on the environment. And we don't measure this today. We don't measure it. The evaluation practices go far behind the communication practices. Today, we have said that we are at the disposal of measuring everything. Judas is a manifestation of that, just like Ometris, just like Plum Analytics. Why has he been bought by Sevier? Because this is an evidence. That is where you are going to play.  When I was writing my library, that's why I'm defending Google Scholar, because Google Scholar is able to measure other impacts quantitatively. Even those of the environment. But obviously, it's a help. The decision has to be made in pairs. Supposedly, in Spain it's like that, but it's false. Because the Spanish model is absolutely bureaucratic. The Spanish model is based on the positions we have in the rankings. And in the ranking, in the journal rankings, which they just told us here, that they are not taken into account. Of course, I suppose it will be in drama, art and culture. Because the Library and Information Management, as always happens in these evaluation systems. Despite the fact that there aren't as many of them as there are in the ranks, it's very difficult to find them. And, hey, they fall, they eat, they wait. And there's everything in the basket. And the cognitive vision of the disciplines are radically different. Well, therefore, and summarizing, Iran's evaluation practices behind communication practices, the evaluation practices, I think, are going to clearly improve. In Spain, we still don't see them. We don't see them. We are focused exclusively on evaluating positions in the rankings. And they are going to improve, as always happens, on the path of facts. Scientists do a lot of things every day on the web, and that is being measured. And as it is being measured, what we are afraid of is that we are going to go to other metrics, to those all metrics. Why those all metrics? Because those all metrics are part of society. We live in the society of the Selfie. And in the society of the I like it. And we all like the Selfie and the I like it. For me, the problem, and I announce a different problem, is that the new metrics that I think will be imposed on the path of facts, on many manifestations that we do, will not be heard, because the ego and the narcissism that the researchers and all the people have, is driven by these new metrics, that they call on us. And the evaluators, the policy makers, who need to justify their action, quantitative support, who use it only to justify their actions, and to avoid what is difficult, which is to submit judgements of value, which is what makes a bad review. They are a reviewer. Of course, they will appeal to these metrics. And what I have alerted, is that we are facing a problem, surely, I say it in addition, look at what I say, in addition, it is not yet, and an important addition problem. That is why I told you, surely we will have to make a new manifesto, but this time, to talk about additions, and remember, the most famous work in English, in Google Scholar, is the mental disorder manual, which was made in the United States in the 1950s. I do not know if it will be significant, forgive the extension. Well, to mention the mental disorder manual, it seems very important to me. My answer, I would separate it in two parts. The first is the issue of coverage. Google Scholar has a much better coverage, and it also makes it easier for us, quotes from outside the academy, which are very interesting. Emilio, I am sorry to tell you, they are very interesting, but they are not an impact. Most of the social impact of science occurs through processes of which we do not have knowledge, in personal interactions of the researchers with people from the company, with people from associations, to which we do not have access. There will be many almetrics, but I believe that we do not have to confuse it with impact. But in relation to coverage, we can continue the debate later. What is impact? I would like to mention that Google Scholar is fantastic, but it belongs to a private company where there is no transparency, there is no control. I believe that the time has come with the instruments of science and technology of the information we have to create a public database of international publications. Countries like Brazil, Colombia, in many parts of Latin America have developed alternatives like Cielo, Redalik, in countries like Norway, Finland and Flanders have also created public databases, extensive public databases with all national magazines, and that also allow us to look at the editorial quality in order to be able to control. I believe that the time has come since the public university, the public institutions that are paying 40% of the benefits that private companies have that are working on the branch can say that there is enough public capacity to create an international alternative at the level that there is an exhaustive coverage of all magazines and then each one takes the list that wants to do the evaluations as they want, but we would have to have the capacity to do that in the same way that there is Orkid or that there is Crossref, which are consortium, I think we have to propose to see if there is a possibility to make a consortium to have a public database of magazines. That is part of coverage. For the evaluation part, the way we have been thinking about the evaluation in all these talks is in a submative way, which means that once the investigation is developed, it gives points to classify whether people have done it well or not. But the main objective of the evaluation would be to understand the investigation that has been done to improve. And the traditional peer review of REF, that is, the REF, traditionally in magazines or in research canceels is that you send a job and they respond to that job with a series of comments about what they like, what they don't like and how it can be improved. So I think the important thing is to change our understanding of evaluation from a submative bureaucratic understanding of monitoring and monitoring towards an evaluation that we need to learn. How do we learn? Well, we don't learn from an evaluation at a national level or the whole university. We learn from a panel of a few people, five people who visit a department, they spend two or three days in the department, once every five or ten years, they talk to the people in the department, they discuss what lines of work have been done, what lines of work have not been done, why? And it helps to manage future strategies at a qualitative level not with numbers, but with a vision of the future. And that's done in countries like Holland and it works. I don't understand why we have to continue with evaluation models, monitoring, as if we were in a sausage factory and we have to do quality control of the amount of salt in the sausages. We have to do evaluation models that facilitate strategies and vision of the future. Well, in order to encourage things, we are going to discredit something and agree on the last part. But let's go for the part of the impact and then for the school and the company. Let's start with the impact. What do we discredit? The impact is to leave marks. This is what I understand as an impact. The scientific impact is to leave scientific marks. The impacts are measured and the indicators are always approximate. An indicator is an indication of something. Therefore, I never take it in absolute terms and never have to take it in absolute terms. Therefore, it is to leave marks. Look, today we are celebrating this round table and we are having an impact. Well, I don't know what impact we are having. And I'm going to illustrate this so you can see why they are going to be, supposedly they are going to be useful, not the salt and the sun, all of them. Today we have an impact here which is on the people who are watching here. We cannot measure and enter into the mind yet, because this is the other great question. We are in the network and our mind is there. Remember this always. And you know what we do. We are not going to be able to measure the impact we are making right now in our minds. But you know, the only proxy we have of this is Ismael. Right now there is a proxy and here there are people who are tweeting this session. Can you please tell me what you are tweeting of that session? I never do that. I don't like doing it. When I'm here, because I don't like the virtual, I like the real ones. For everyone. The virtuality.  What I want to say is that that proxy you have there which is going to be the tweets that are being transmitted right now and which means I like them or valuations, they are indirect indicators of what is happening here today, which is an act that could not be measured before. That is an impact. Another impact. Social impact. Well, what I tell you about Google Scholar that has nothing to do with this question is that it essentially measures quotes but different from the scientific quotes of the newspapers. That's why I put this end of the library, of my library, okay? That is to say, that it is able to measure issues around obviously as a proxy and that's why I put this case of the professors. Professors that if they are judged with an egg or a scope in their hands they are laminated. They don't appear. But with Google Scholar they are able to be laminated and I'm not defending the ranking. I insist that the ranking for me is an experiment. But the experiment has a certain solvency because it allows me to include people and value people who are not going to value not even in CNI, not even in Aneca, which is the Spanish Agency, allow them to value their work that I think is extraordinary within the community. Biological Society. Google Scholar. Well, you've given me the taste. It's free. It's a company, but that system is free and we have a debate in Spain because we don't abolish... you're no longer from Thompson, nothing happens. It's just that before working in Thompson, Reuters, in the Aueo Sallan, we annul the subscription to Aueo Sallan and to the products from... well, from Thompson, no, from Clarivirate, or whatever it's called, and from Scopus. And we search the information in Google Scholar that is there because I've already said that the Aueo Sallan and Scopus are inside that database. Obviously, comparisons, not comparable, from the bibliographic point of view. You have to say that. It's free. Hey, guys, I'm not going to go against a company that is offering me now a free database. What would you like me to do in Europe? Well, of course, I want you to do it in Europe. And it doesn't matter to me if it's a private or public company. I'd love to have a European search system but we haven't done it. And when we create... someone who knows European... Yes? Okay, then, look, you hit me. I fell. I thought nobody was going to say, hey, this doesn't know it. Nothing more than four initials. The question is who uses it. Well, this is already, indeed. Who knows it, but who uses it? And that's an alternative. I don't know a seed. I'm not a specialist in information recovery at that level. But that was an alternative. And we're not able to... Hey, I'm excited to create a company. Now, I'm not going to go against someone who offers me something free. Now, okay. And I'm done. There's nothing free. Because you know, and this is another part that worries me. We deliver our life to the victim. Mr. de Kudos. And that's power. Every time you... Because here nobody will have, I suppose, nobody will have Gmail mail. Nobody has. Does anyone have a mail that doesn't have Gmail? There's someone. There must always be a weird one, please. Or rare one. Every time we have it activated and we're navigating the system keeps everything we do, as you know. And that's the reason why Google is a good algorithm. Because it uses what is called the subjective perspective. Not the objective. And that's why it doesn't hook us. Because we look for it and it gives us what we ask for. But because it knows what we do. These new metrics will mean that the researcher of all things, that worries me in terms of behavior, are unstoppable. Are unstoppable. Even in humanity. Because I, of the whole system of the web, I find it interesting to see that the word international appears everywhere. And we've finished the talk of Dr. Boyle talking about how to publish an article in a magazine. Because today we're talking about magazines. We help here in Spain in the CNI because the beauties consider that they do research. Error. They do art. It's something that comes to mind and is more beautiful than the research. But they want to be at the university stage. We made an absolute inventory of all their output. And you know what I wanted? To invent everything they do from the design of a cover. I love it. In fact, it's a step. Hey, I designed this. But then I had the indicator. And for whom did you design it? My god, for the university with P.U.Fabra. For the Granada University. For the Dejan. This is what you do. And they've been looking for the wrong idea to understand me. But if you don't do that, I would like to be in a sub-panel of the REF talking qualitatively about the things they do. Interesting. Now I come back to the English. Now it's time for you. If you want to ask any question. Yes? Dr. Boyle. I think you have tackled a bit the issue of local impact. And I kind of see some conflict of rationales between the rational of impact and the rational of relevance. Example. The academic work. So it's national impact. Not too relevant. Not too relevant. Sorry, it's national reach. And impact. National impact can be eventually very broad. Can trigger policy changes. Can determine very focused and much participation. Broad debates etc. What do you do in those cases? Shouldn't you upgrade the reach of the work or your model just works in a way that offsets the difference or the contradiction? So we have a second. The уже and the basing impact. So the quality descriptors on the slide paid for outputs. There was different descriptors for impact and the descriptors and still internationally significant because if what that because reach was defined by the community in a sense the community who need to know something or the community who are in a position to actually take the research and affect some kind of change so that could be local and internationally significant so it wasn't the case that impact had to as far as I understand the impact had to be demonstrated in terms of international collaborations or colleagues it could be something and I think that's where I'm absolutely not saying that we've got it right by any stretch yet but I think there is some attempt to offset what you were asking about in terms of can we still do research that is related to the communities and the universities in which we're in that the universities are embedded in can we still research and contribute to our local communities and that's often where we've got particularly I think in the humanities and arts more generally where we've actually got the opportunity to make very direct impact often that was very valued and those kinds of case studies did well I think there is a tension I completely agree between the descriptors and the descriptors in terms of world leading internationally excellent internationally recognized nationally recognized those descriptors I would say are promotional tools rather than hard and fast judgments it's so universities can say X percent of our research is world leading and internationally excellent it doesn't actually mean people all over the world have read it it could be very local so it kind of offsets some of those anxieties but it does so by dressing it up as something else so it's not that helpful I think there is a danger in these are local versus international way of thinking because the international community the so-called international community to which extent is it truly international when you look at it it's mainly northwestern European and North American I'm going to put a silly example in Valencia and the Polytechnic University of Valencia we have the best journal for rabbit breeding rabbit is a type of meat that is valued in the Mediterranean coast of Spain in southern France and in Italy but it's not eaten in many other places in the world so when you compare excellent research when you look at excellent research on rabbit breeding well it just happens in these territories but of course you know in Australia they don't eat rabbit and are in North America now if you look if you are doing research on pig or doing research on cow this could be anywhere in the world now you don't want to have paella with pork it's going to be something else right so if we want to preserve the diversity of cuisines in the world we need to value the best rabbit breeding research but but you know if instead of the UK being colonizing big part of the world had it been people in Sicily now maybe rabbit would be the international food rather than cows and but the second one is the other question and possibly more important is is that the many problems which are local but have global repercussions and when we think about climate change epidemics you know Zika dengue these are problems that are not yet recognized by parts of the international community as global so we had now plus one developed a journal specifically for neglect neglected tropical diseases but these are diseases that could affect all the world in a very short period so it is actually the lack of long-term perspective of the international community which labels certain type of researchers local whereas it in fact it has global implications so this is why I think we have to think beyond the labels of local and international because I think in our fields one of the key areas where we saw that in reference stances around language and minority language and I think there's a lot of really really important and excellent scholarship in communications generally about minority language broadcasting for instance that seems to have a very very you know Welsh language broadcasting is broadcasting to I don't know what's the population of Wales not very big group of people but actually the implications are about the preservation of language they're about public service broadcasting and they resonate with other minority language communities in lots of different contexts so there are parallels to rabbit breeding in communication studies I would say. Can I ask a general question about duration in relation to these questions and how we think about the longevity of things like impact whether we think of impact as something that's assessed metrically or assessed qualitatively in terms of an imagined role for the publication as Karen was indicating was substantially important in the ref process in the UK because I think it's very important to consider the time as well as the moment that if you see what I mean. I think you've hit on something really challenging for any research assessment process because a research assessment process of the ref variety is a snapshot in time and it has to be a snapshot in time because people move institutions institutions change departments close department you know new department so it's only ever going to be a snapshot but if we're genuinely interested in impact it's got to have a much longer tail and I forget off the top of my head but I think the proposals for the new exercise or the impact can be claimed on research going back up to 20 years I think that's the time frame that to me makes a lot of sense I think judging the quality of an output with a 20 year tail is much more well it's not possible in the kind of framework we have but maybe that's why we need some kind of impact measure I'm not sure the one we've got quite right for that yet though I think when we talk you're talking now about impact you mean societal impact what is called impact in the context of the research assessment exercise not scientific impact I'm the notion of impact I believe it's a bit of a fiction and take you know a small piece of you take take a smaller stone in the beginning of a river 100 kilometers upstream from the river getting to the sea and then ask what is the impact of that smaller stone in the flow of the river that stone has an effect on the flow of the river and you know it even has an effect on Newtonian terms we're not talking here about quantum physics has an effect on Newtonian terms which in theory you should be able to trace now what happens you know that piece of that smaller stone gets hit by many other stones gets tracked by by by the water so the notion that impact is something linear comes against the very intuition of how knowledge proceeds which is with interactions with many other type of knowledge so and moreover if we're talking about knowledge that matters in terms of societal terms it is the notion that that knowledge only flows from academia to society and not from society to academia is also problematic that there is a continuum into shape into change so in front of these critiques thank you actually it is a fiction to believe that you can know what is the impact of a smaller stone a hundred kilometers upstream from reaching the sea and the research Councils in the UK developed a nice framework of pathways to impact so and this is what supposedly the ref should be looking into which means and we're not going to judge what is the impact in 20 years time we're going to judge whether your research is doing efforts to engage with the stakeholders which will use this knowledge and which from which you will be able to learn as well what is beneficial to others it's the pathways to impacts now what it's and the research Councils in the UK to their credit have been very articulate about this discourse however I see that in policy in the end the simple notion the Newtonian bill your type of impact is what dominates but come on this is a think a fiction and we should not take it seriously because the research Councils are describing impact as one thing journals are describing impact to something else and refs describing it as something else entirely so and I think yeah and actually the let me give a reference the there was this fantastic piece by Daniel Saravitz in the New Atlantis last summer Daniel Saravitz is a political economist in the US who's worked a lot on science policy and he made a very strong critique on the way science is moving criticizing the lack of engagement so the point about impact it's if we think in terms of pathways the key point is about the dialogue our researchers engaging in dialogue with the communities they are supposed to serve or learn from or they want to contribute to my apologies to this English speaking speakers because now I'm going to move to into Spanish because my question is for Dr. Delgado probably we can discuss it in the afternoon after having lunch in the international roundtable but my question goes directly to a topic that I think is the most interesting thing I've said no for the repercussions that it has in our our daily behavior yesterday and yesterday we had two previous conferences within the framework of the second international conference in in academic communication and the Dr. Lee Edwards talked a lot about the power that public relations of companies are exercising on where the money goes and how this modifies our daily behavior to the current people and this would link a lot with all the dynamics of the companies that evaluate the investigation and how it finally recovers in the evaluation agencies and how it finally recovers in our behavior as researchers not something that we should worry about on the other hand Friedrich Krootz on Wednesday spoke very much in the sense of Dr. Raffles that perhaps the only solution is to make public, not nationalize Twitter, right? Because we were talking about Twitter at that moment and Ismael Raffles is talking about Thomson Reuters or Scopus or any other, right? Or Google Scholar itself. Well, you talked about a moment from the dark side and I will say a little bit, I will repeat the same words that Luke Skywalker said to his father, right? Which is that it intends the conflict inside him because it is constant and I will try to explain to me why it is constant, right? Because you are not any academic, you are an academic like me, but you dedicate yourself to what is dedicated to Google Scholar and here we lose a bit the focus of, if we are talking like Bibioteconomists, yes, or we are talking like only academics, right? And the process of Google Scholar, and sorry for making me so excited, but it has given me time to develop ideas. In the end, it leads us to a re-institutionalization or a de-institutionalization of the research process and its evaluation, which is linked to other social processes that we are living as the ones that live in the media itself, right? In the end, Google Scholar and Google and the fake news and our fake research and our plagiarist readers lead us the same, they lead us absolutely the same. I'm worried that an academic, and I'm going to say it with all sincerity, but without the desire to be harmful, I'm worried that an academic says that a 10% of horror is little. It sounds like Lars Arsfeld, right? Saying, hey, the media have no influence, which is a 3%, a 4%, don't worry about you, but I work for advertising agencies, right? I'm worried about thinking that this 10% can act as a snowball in the future and end up being a 50%. Why don't we have any control over it? And I'm finally worried that we are living in the world of the great brother of research, but we are becoming our profession in a reality show. And you have described it perfectly, right? All the academic, and I'm looking at this whole day. How many quotes, citations, etc., etc., so I know you have the same conflict, that we can have most of us. I would like to hear more of you where would you go, a choice, would we say, more or less, that you keep us healthy in the future at mid and long term, which I agree with Ismael raffles that would go through nationalizing all these companies because what the most conflict suggests and invites us is the fact that they are private and that they work with some mechanisms that we do not like but we do not like Google School either. I'm sure I've left things, but I don't want to happen anymore. Well, you are absolutely right. In my life, the dark side and the strength side, because the dark side, because I am a bibliometer, I am there all day with the subway and I am with the subway, I think that I have not been able to transmit the message, the dark part is the subway and it is the one of the bibliometer, it is not the one of the companies yet, the dark side has to do with that narcissistic desire that we all have and selfish to see ourselves reflected in any way and what I see is that love for knowledge has been replaced by love for recognition and if it says that I live it inside, well, yes, I think I don't even care to say it. I am a professional who is with the subway in his hand, who is watching people and I cannot imagine to what extent and who lives the contradiction and what I have to do for social responsibility, for that one of the points that is in the manifesto Leiden, which I think is the most important thing for those of us who dedicate ourselves to this professionalism, we have a social responsibility to say that it is not good or what are the problems that may come. As a result, I am happy and I think I have an impact on this, saying these things, I mean impact on generating reflection on what can happen to us, okay, second question, I am not very a part-timer of birth, to analyze anything, what I am a part-timer is that there is competition and products emerge that are capable of killing, I said before who remembers altavista, a company will come out who will be able to do it better, hey, hopefully it will be public, what I say is that in search of information, who has revolutionized the world has been google and look at you, do not pay me google, I will be absolutely unfaithful and I recommend it tomorrow when another comes or another I will change, yes or no, perfectly I am talking about google but if you forget, I have reflected on the data that you present and how we look for in google is practically more important than the figures that we put because how we look for in google scholar influence decisively on the results that they are going to put on us and then it is an evidence that the absolutely unequal distribution of influence within the school google invisibles 90% or 95% of the authors and it is an evidence for what we are in a liberal paradigm that you have said I am a Darwinist, I would not put myself on the other side but a little more to the left or to the right but a little more to the left we put it in the sense that we should face at some point that the ultra-liberal paradigm applied to everything when our university our institution is a different institution with different objectives and this is the social impact of what you talked about we have different objectives and we must preserve them if it is that we believe in them as we must preserve the legitimacy that we give ourselves in the peer review we must preserve if we believe in it that our quality as researchers as researchers is something good because if not obviously we end up in this which is the ultra-liberal paradigm in which the influence is distributed in an absolutely unfair way well I did not go into the question of ideological which is interesting and then if we can debate I am just going to the technical part which is interesting because it has made a statement that they are gross, gross for gross for gross not because it speaks to someone who is thick and not thin as my name says look at what contradiction you see how the sides the both sides always live in me empirically we have shown that the search in google school the search in google school when they are done for years they are presented according to the number of quotes received that is the main factor those are objective data the algorithm is fundamentally heavy to that 2 2 therefore if you are if you are the oldest ahead ok we have not yet shown empirically and in that we are what happens when we do the searches for clear words obviously it has touched the point that to me to understand it seems to me more dangerous from google school my love with google school is simply to be all day observing what I say is that today the main source of information this is evident and that it is dangerous and it is dangerous because please I am going to ask a question as always our colleague is me I love that you ask questions how much do you reach the second page of results and you arrive to the third and to the fourth and to the fifth in short what we know what we know is that people do not pass from the first page of results and why do we know empirically because google school took a decision and is to reduce the number of results that appear by omission by defect in the presentation of results of 100 to 20 why do you think that did that google because google knows the millions of consultations that are carried out and knows that people do not pass from the page 20 that is very dangerous and also it is very dangerous because it is like a menu I usually say that google is like the menu of the day there is this and this is eaten by you man the egg sagan allows us to order for many more dangerous menus in the egg sagan than google speaking of liberal terms for the next the topic is interesting we really receive the information that the searcher gives us this question is magnificent and I have it there too ok my goal is to investigate google and google school and therefore evidence what is inside no no I am not in favor of what I do say is that it measures more than the rest of the tools that we are having right now regarding the error to see if we do not find out when we say error of the 10% I am saying that this type of error I am not talking about us in science we know that we tolerate the error of the 2% of the 2.5 I am not talking about that term I am talking about something else more than this and it is that here the decimals do not interest we have thrown all our lives and we continue to throw all our lives evaluating with decimals the impasse factor to see from the magazines that are here that impasse factor they have 0.001 and that is what decides and that does not worry you what I am telling you that here when there is a 10% error here there is no decimals is that the error is to have an h index of 1 of 2 and that is irrelevant because we in google school we have to change the paradigm of measurement if someone decides to use it and we talk about cluster it does not matter to me that it is the first the second the third the important thing is that it is in the cluster x and the error we have shown that it is insignificant that is to say that if I tell you that it has the h index of 7 to have 8 6 it is irrelevant and that is the error that it has, it is worth now well we can make a house of horrors I have said horrors and not of horrors with error in google school I can put you in that this and every day individual cases you are measuring 200 million or 250 we are again measuring the size of documents that are many documents and therefore the error rate is not worth it well you have talked about being frantic I had not taken that disease because I already hear it if I think that I have said it before they are going to grow mental diseases in the publication behavior before we had the impact it is and now we will have more serious things I say I say it but why do I say it because I live in a society where I have said before to take selfies and be all day looking for my liking and the quotes are what the most like the researchers are Spanish and British because the highly researched and here we have one that is also very good as you are seeing it is not because yes it is because they are highly references this the highly cited I am exactly but I think it has been noted but I can tell you that I know something like highly cited for a question that there is a gap in the way how the fields are counted in the web of science is a centimeter that is classified as a social scientist compared to a sociologist we get a lot of quotes therefore I am a false highly cited and well it is not if you have seen the ranking that we all do is highly which shows that it is highly where I look at the problems of the previous ranking, but I did not respect the question of the basis of data, I did not want to suggest that it is a national company, I did not want to suggest that there would be publicly controlled public alternatives of infrastructures and it is not something that I invented, there are people who have thought about it much more, Cameron Nailon who was the one who took the advocacy advocacy of plus one now does not take it and joff builder who is one of the managers of crossref that is the DOE and they have if you look at Cameron Nailon principles for openly scholarly infrastructures gives a series of recommendations of what kind of international consortium of public vocation can be created so that there are some open infrastructures to everyone not necessarily managed by the state managed by the state holders but that they have a public vocation not for profit and it is at this level that is being thought about more than at the level of nationalizing well unfortunately we have already exceeded the time that corresponds to the morning session then we are going to have to finish here to be able to return to time then continue with the afternoon session, now we have lunch time okay thank you very much to the speakers for being here I think that this round table was amazing I enjoy a lot thank you very much to you that and this because for your participation I don't know if you are familiar with this neighborhood around the university you have a lot of restaurants if you are not familiar probably a good option is to go out and turn to the right okay to the shopping center well you will find a lot of restaurants bar cafes also please we will back and we'll start the afternoon sessions at three o'clock okay thank you