In conversation with Dr. John P. Ioannidis: On meta-research, metrics, gaming, and top 2 per cent scientists

When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure", the Goodhart's Law.The massive growth of research literature brings great responsibility towards the accountability of data and their translational value in terms of quality and performance outcomes.The evolving digital environment has bestowed 'quantifiable outcomes' upon the scientific community.However, as everything viable, these too embody both the Yin and the Yang of all translations.Today there are a number of indicators which can quantify research output and consider various facets of a given piece of research to pin a numerical figure against it denoting its value.In this context, Journal level and Author level metrics, authorship credits, and diverse performance assessment indicators are very popular.While such indicators originated from the scientific fraternity itself to measure and hence assess the need for enhancing accountability in different thematic areas of research, these have now generationally been handed down with distorted convictions due to varying levels of understanding within that same scientific fraternity.Furthermore, these performance indicators may exert immense pressure on researchers to perform in specific ways.This distortion of understanding has unfortunately been leveraged to 'commodify' research and researcher performances themselves, a hefty trade-off for profit making.These trade-offs are most visible today through the gaming of various quantifiable metrics.