However, metrics originally developed for academic journals can be reported at researcher level, such as the author-level eigenfactor[4] and the author impact factor.
[40] Some academics, such as physicist Jorge E. Hirsch, have praised author-level metrics as a "useful yardstick with which to compare, in an unbiased way, different individuals competing for the same resource when an important evaluation criterion is scientific achievement.
[47][48] Additionally, if the h-index is considered as a decision criterion for research funding agencies, the game-theoretic solution to this competition implies increasing the average length of coauthors' lists.
[49] A study analyzing >120 million papers in the specific field of biology showed that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening.
[50] As predicted by Goodhart's law, quantity of publications is not a good metric anymore as a result of shorter papers and longer author lists.
Leo Szilard, the inventor of the nuclear chain reaction, also expressed criticism of the decision-making system for scientific funding in his book "The Voice of the Dolphins and Other Stories".
[52] Szilard's work focuses on metrics slowing scientific progress, rather than on specific methods of gaming: "As a matter of fact, I think it would be quite easy.
As a matter of fact, any of the National Science Foundation bills which were introduced in the Seventy-ninth and Eightieth Congress could perfectly well serve as a model."