Science sociology

The epistemic consequences of bibliometrics-based evaluation

Until a few years ago, most Italian scientists had hardly heard of things like the impact factor of a journal or the h-index of a researcher; nowadays these seem to be their everyday concern. What are they about? They are some of the parameters introduced with the aim of quantitatively assessing the outcome of scientific research, giving rise to a new discipline called scientometrics, and in particular bibliometrics for what concerns the scientific publications.

Rebuilding the City of Science. Back where it was.

It is so obvious, it appears trivial. The City of Science must be immediately rebuilt, back to there it was born. That same place where somebody was able to partially destroy the material structure – as explained by Vittorio Silvestrini – who was on the right track.
The reasons, which may seem trivial, prompting us – imposing on us – to rebuild the City of Science back where it was born, are two in number. They are both completely different.

Convicted for poor science communication

They were convicted with a harsh penalty: 6 years imprisonment. They were all convicted, the members of the Major Risks Commission which met in L'Aquila shortly before the earthquake of 6 April 2009. The Court convicted all of them, Civil Protection senior officials and distinguished geophysicists such as Franco Barberi and Enzo Boschi, not for "bad science" but for "poor science communication".