The Publication Forum classification is not suitable to evaluate individual researchers or to compare different disciplines.
The Publication Forum classification is too approximate to be used as a tool for evaluating or comparing the publications or merits of individual researchers. The publication channels of Level 1 may contain individual publications that are above the average in terms of quality and impact, while the publication channels classified as Level 2 and 3 may include publications that do not meet the average quality and may be never cited. Due to the differences in publication practices and research questions and methods, the number of publications on the higher level publication channels produced by individual researchers varies both between and inside the disciplines and fields of research. The classification cannot substitute for peer evaluation as a criterion or grounds for decisions on an individual researcher's recruitment, financing or rewarding.
In the internal use of research organisations, the classification is best suited for the follow-up of the progress made within the research area’s or unit’s own publication operations. The results can be used as information to the expert panels evaluating their research. Using the classification mechanistically to allocate financing to research units may lead to inequitable treatment of different fields of science. The purpose of the Publication Forum is to promote quality by encouraging researchers to direct their scientific publications to top-level channels classified as Levels 1, 2 and 3. In certain instances it may be most feasible to choose a Level 0 or non-classified publication channel.