Science Citation Index data: Two additional reasons against its use for administrative purposes
First, for decades the use of anonymity in reviews for science funding proposals and for evaluating manuscripts for publication has been gradually corrupting American science, encouraging and rewarding the dark elements of human nature. Unethical reviewers, secure and unaccountable through anonymity, all too often make untrue and/or pejorative statements to eliminate their professional competitors. Survival in this corrupt environment has led to a consensus-only mentality. Consequently, important scientific contradictions, if they can be published at all, are selectively ignored in many instances out of fear of anonymous retaliation. Science Citation Index data in such a corrupt environment may be of little administrative value, except for possible use in documenting scientific fraud. Second, as knowledge of the administrative use of Science Citation Index data spreads, scientists will adapt and will shift to research on popular subjects to elicit greater numbers of citations, rather than to take the paths less trodden where important scientific discoveries may lay waiting.