The increasing reliance on quantitative indicators - such as citation counts, h-index, journal impact factors, and composite researcher scores - has transformed how academic merit is defined, measured, and rewarded. At the same time, universities and funding agencies are progressively incorporating algorithmic tools and automated decision-support systems into processes governing hiring, promotion, tenure, and grant allocation. These developments raise fundamental questions about meritocracy, transparency, and fairness in research evaluation.

High-profile ranking exercises - such as the widely circulated “2% scientists” list produced by researchers at Stanford University - illustrate how composite bibliometric indicators can shape reputations, institutional strategies, and individual career trajectories on a global scale, often without clear public understanding of their methodological assumptions or limitations

We invite contributions that critically examine those points. The session is organized by Prof. Luca Martino (luca.martino@unict.it)  in collaboration with the Association “Trasparenza e Merito” (https://www.trasparenzaemerito.org/). By bringing together scholars in scientometrics, research policy, sociology of science, and higher-education governance, this session aims to foster interdisciplinary dialogue on how evaluation systems shape academic behavior and institutional priorities. 

Interested participants are invited to submit an abstract by 10 April 2026 and to send (possibly) it via email to luca.martino@unict.it