So long as we keep the central "currency" - i.e. the impact factor - as the central value unit, we are caught in the trap that was set up in the '80s and early '90s.

They worked like hell to set up a citation system that would not exclude them and they then tried to join the Garfield-inspired JIF device. They never really succeeded. They remained in a kind of Clarivate purgatory and they have stayed there ever since. (see next).

I am going to suggest one further step: not only do researchers should organize to evaluate, but they should define what value is, and do it in their terms. This means multi-dimensional and diverse evaluation system. My concern is fed by the history of what happened to SciELO (see next).

Exactly! Research institutions to be precise.
The fundamental point is that evaluation of research should be controlled by researchers self-organizing, and not publishers enrolling the help of researchers through editorial boards.

The 'radical,' 'woke' science of aspergillus infections and bronchial biopsies.

Tout à fait d'accord. Il faut aussi donner quelques petites leçons à ce malotru.🤩

And I hate the use of citation stats for anything other than the sociology of scientific networks. Stats, as numbers, lead to rankings and hyper-competition. Hyper-competition is just the old tool of dividing to reign. Citation stats, after 1970, became tools of publishers, not of researchers.