I'm not sure that's actually something we want within the institution. IMO the most important thing is improving the overall _reliability_ of research. On this

I'm not sure that's actually something we want within the institution. IMO the most important thing is improving the overall _reliability_ of research. On this note, and admittedly a bit of a (relevant) plug: I work at a startup called scite that's trying to improve this -- https://scite.ai https://scite.ai Citations are the primary mechanism by which scientific papers "talk" to one another, and one of the systemic issues we see in the status quo is a sort of numerical reductionism where a lot of emphasis is placed on "how many times someone is cited" without any indication of whether those citation counts are from papers that support or dispute someone's findings. One of the things we do at scite is let you see, for a paper, how it has been cited (i.e. not just a count, but the surrounding textual context around the citation, and a classification from our model as to whether the citing work provides supporting or disputing evidence for the cited paper, or just mentions it). That information is also aggregated to the author level, or journal, and so on. The hope is that by providing (and improving) this service so that researchers can see how papers are cited, we're able to promote more reliable science (in addition to letting someone explore new subject areas / doing lit reviews much faster, and other things). I just wanted to share that because a lot of the other comments were more abstract and it might help to include something more tangible that's being actively worked on now. There's a lot of interesting work in general in this space. If you have any thoughts / feedback / questions, feel free to reply here (I check occassionally) or write to me at the email in my profile.