Comments on “Ranking researchers: Evidence from Indonesia” by Fry et al. (2023)

Abstract

The authors express gratitude to Fry et al. (2023) for their contribution to the research assessment situation in Indonesia, which highlights technical issues regarding the controversial SINTA Platform, positive feedback on efforts made, and the importance of data sharing for scientific development. However, the authors want to clarify some points to avoid potential misunderstandings for international readers, particularly those from low and middle income countries.

The authors cited only a limited number of references in their overview of the research ecosystem in Indonesia, which may lead to inaccuracies and oversimplifications.

To provide a more comprehensive understanding, the authors should expand their reference base to include a diverse range of sources. Engaging with diverse stakeholders is crucial to gain a nuanced understanding of the local context and challenges facing researchers in Indonesia.

Prioritizing good research practices that prioritize quality and innovation is more important than relying solely on traditional metrics and rankings, as discussed in the paper. Research funding allocation should be aligned with national development priorities to establish the relevance and significance of research.

Should the authors have had communications with local researchers, then they should get the idea that The SINTA platform serves as a gatekeeper for scholarly works produced by Indonesian researchers.