Slovenia has essentially adopted a bibliometric system of research evaluation, based on impact factors, whereby more or less the same rules apply for evaluating research across all fields and disciplines, including law. This chapter shows that although there are some advantages of the bibliometric system, there are also several drawbacks, where form threatens to prevail over the content of publications. Even though one might say that Slovenian research evaluation reflects a Big Brother like approach, where every step of a researcher is scored, the system has certain advantages, especially in terms of objectivity and transparency. On the other hand, however, the Slovenian bibliometric model committed a categorical error against which Thomson Reuters itself warns, i.e. impact factors of scientific journals are used to evaluate the scientific performance of individual researchers, thereby encouraging salami slicing and several other practices to potentiate the bibliometric score.
Other access options
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Log in with your Elgar Online account