SCIENCE ASSESSMENT: WHAT IS LIMITATION MEASURED?

The article launches a discussion regarding the evaluation of scientific activity or the evaluation of journals in the light of databases, and mainly with reference to the Leiden Manifesto. The foreseeable consequences of the totalitarian imposition of scientometric approaches leading to segregation in the scientific field and, as a consequence, its destruction, as happened with the science of the USSR, are given. Scientometry or bibliometry, which has recently been regarded as the apex achievement of the human mind, is represented as cytatometry or, more accurately, surname (special metometry). It is substantiated why such an approach has the opposite effect: a quantitative indicator obscures the absence of what is the essence of science. The question is, to what extent is the review of literary sources of scientific importance beyond performing the ethical ritual of honoring predecessors? What will change the scientific results if the respect for glorious ancestors is otherwise exercised? The article describes the definition of science as a sphere of human activity in a broader sense than it tries to impart to policy science (science as a force in new weapons), publishers (science as a factor of influence), or entrepreneurs (science as a new income). Science is presented as the embodiment of the cognitive needs and capabilities of all mankind, which is always an individual acquisition of the individual, including in the case of combining individual efforts in any of the groups of people united for a common purpose. The part of the population involved in the predominantly knowledge-intensive mode of production and maintenance of human viability will naturally grow. Within the bounds of lawlessness outlined in the title of the article, attention is drawn to the question of who is crossing the boundary between the known and the unknown. The overcoming person makes this sense of their own activity, which is commonly called scientific. But overcoming this boundary does not necessarily translate into the propaganda of what has come to light - the design of text that has been defined as scientific. Therefore, the review of the absurdities seen and recorded by Jonathan Swift in the 18th century is proposed to continue counting the names of 21st-century scholars called scientometry or bibliometry, which has nothing to do with evaluating science as a process and the consequence of bridging the line between knowledge and ignorance. Large-scale attempts to reduce all scientific knowledge to numbers gave rise to the conclusion in the article that mathematical calculations as a way of assessing science can be very accurate in detail, but wrong in general. It is argued that the assessment of science is the same science that can exist only in the form of research. The assessment of the value of science results to society belongs to all members of society, not just to members of a limited circle of scientists who, for the most part, happen to be the evaluators.