A new way to measure research/publication impact in Indonesian academic system

I drew this sketch-note during a meeting about measuring research/publication impact. This sketch-note clearly describe my thought about research process and how we should look at research output beyond the far-known metrics we are forced to use today.<br><br>My point is we already have quality controls (QC) starting from grant selection to critical assessment from readers. But still, we lay ourselves to widely used metrics that have been slowly fade away in the academic perspective. <br><br><b>My second point is</b> that indexing is far from measuring the research process. It only sets journal/conference standards not the whole research.<br><br><b>The third point is </b>by trusting those metrics and those alone as the objective clearly underestimates our own scientific background and logic that we have built throughout years of school era. <br><br>We should measure the impact of a research or paper using "open principles" through out its workflow, instead of only looking at the final product: <br><br>(1) is it original on certain level, is the data and analysis scientifically valid, <br>(2) is it reproducible and people can re-do the analysis<b>, </b>is it in shareable online in "ready to use" formats, does it provide data - code - method online,<br>(3) does it have value to community? Have the author engaged and fully interact with the community? <br><br>I hope you get my three points. If you still choose to use the metrics, would it be "the most naive" way to measure impact? I will share the slides and eventually the full paper later on.

本次手绘笔记创作于一场关于研究/出版物影响力评估的学术会议中。该笔记清晰阐述了我对研究流程的思考，以及我们应当如何跳出当下被迫广泛使用的主流计量指标，重新审视研究产出。

我的核心观点是：从基金遴选到同行读者的批判性评估，研究全程本已设置了质量管控（Quality Control, QC）体系，但学界仍过度依赖那些在学术视角下已逐渐失效的通用计量指标。

**第二点**：索引收录远不足以衡量完整的研究流程，其仅能界定期刊/会议的学术门槛，而非覆盖整个研究全流程。

**第三点**：若仅将这类计量指标视为客观评价标准，实则低估了我们在多年求学阶段所锤炼出的学术素养与逻辑思维能力。

我们应当在研究全流程中以「开放原则」为核心评估研究或论文的影响力，而非仅关注最终产出成果：
(1) 是否具备一定程度的原创性，其数据与分析是否具备科学严谨性；
(2) 研究是否可复现，他人能否复刻分析流程；是否以「可直接复用」的格式在线共享，是否公开配套的数据、代码与研究方法；
(3) 是否对学术社群具备价值？作者是否主动参与并充分与社群开展互动？

期待各位能理解我的三点核心主张。若仍选择依赖此类计量指标进行影响力评估，这是否仅为最浅层次的评价方式？后续我将分享本次会议的幻灯片，并最终公开完整的研究论文。