The panel discussion will focus on different approaches in the evaluation of research and researchers and the role publications have in this process. Generally, two strategies have been adopted by different bodies whose tasks include evaluation, and sometimes ranking of researchers. One leans on exact numerical parameters like publication metrics and the evaluation of other achievements transposed into numerical values, while the other is based on peers’ opinions. The first is more objective and easier to perform by evaluation bodies, but it considers only a limited number of achievements, often omitting valuable contributions that are either not included in preset criteria, or are not easily expressed in numerical ponders. The second is more wholesome and content oriented, but in the same time more subjective and dependent on individual opinions. Finally, differences among science fields have to be considered, as well. The panel will attempt to generate suggestions to the decision making bodies through a constructive discussion of experts coming from different science areas. Experience of other countries like Poland and Denmark will also make a valuable contribution to the discussion.
