Quantità per qualità? Sull'inadeguatezza delle valutazioni bibliometriche per giudicare la ricerca in medicina e in sanità pubblica

Bibliometrics is the set of procedures that detect, with various statistical tools, numerical indices related to the number of publications of each researcher, the citations that have resulted, and the impact on the scientific community of the journals in which these publications are published (the Impact factor is probably the most well known and diffuse example). But it is appropriate to assess research activity in relation to the results of the activity in terms of quantitative performance (number of publications and other “tangible products”)? Or rather, their effects in terms of quality of knowledge? And, consequently, which indicators, which parameters, which tools, and which approaches would be more appropriate to adopt? This paper seeks to answer these questions, highlighting the limitations and distortions of bibliometric evaluations; tools not transparent enough and impartial in order to assess research and researchers