SUMMARY
The article is devoted to the consideration of key scientometric platforms, which are widely used in Ukraine. The practice of application of such platforms as Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Russian index of scientific citation, Index Copernicus, Journal's International Compliance Index, Ukrainian index of scientific citation, "Scientists of Ukraine" is analyzed. Key parametric tools that the above-mentioned platforms use to determine proposed scientometric indicators are identified and critically analyzed. In particular, attention is paid to the possibilities of evaluating the Hirsch-index for ranking scientific publications on the importance and value. The key shortcomings inherent in the Hirsch-index are revealed. Also, the practice of using the impact factor for assessing the quality of scientific publications is considered. Advantages and disadvantages of the practice of using these scientometric platforms for assessing the quality of the publication activity of institutions, publications and scientists are being studied. The key strengths and weaknesses of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar have been identified. The possibility of using along with the above science-based platforms and such as: the Russian index of scientific citation and the Journal's International Compliance Index is being proved. The incorrectness of using the Index Copernicus platform for assessing the quality of scientific work and the inadequacy of the tools of the Ukrainian Index of Scientific Citation to the evaluation of the quality of scientific and publishing activity are justified. The inconsistency of using scientometric tools exclusively for assessing the quality of scientific work is being proved. The necessity of transforming the practice of assessing the quality of science through the prism of scientometric indicators, by changing the editorial policy (DORA) and the introduction of new parametric tools (R-factor) with another philosophy for the evaluation of scientific works is substantiated.