Yet nowhere does the principle reshape outcomes more quietly – and more consequentially – than in academia, where it is not just results but the architecture of ambition itself that bends to its logic.
Universities present themselves as arenas of merit, where brilliance rises naturally toward recognition. Yet in reality, the world of journal publishing, citation counts, and institutional prestige resembles a reputation marketplaceskewed by legacy and access. Influence compounds along familiar lines, while those outside established networks find themselves locked out of visibility, relevance, and reward. Innovation, it seems – unless safely packaged – is a dangerous wager. And so, countless ideas, like that buried talent, are hidden away before they are ever given a chance to grow.
Metrics were meant to illuminate excellence.But instead of casting light, they have thickened the shadows – entrenching privilege, narrowing inquiry, and rewarding only those already standing in the spotlight.
The idea that scholarly excellence could be measured with precision is a relatively recent invention. The Journal Impact Factor (JIF), introduced in the mid-twentieth century, marked the beginning of this shift – offering first libraries and then academic publishers, universities, and funding agencies a seemingly neutral way to quantify influence and impose order on the ambiguity of peer judgment. Over time, additional metrics such as citation counts, universityand journal rankings, and the h-index amplified this logic, promising to identify scholarly value with algorithmic efficiency. It was a technocratic vision of academic meritocracy: detached, rational, transparent, and fair.