Introduction. The digitalization of public governance in the scientific sphere has increasingly promoted platform-based solutions and quantitative indicators for evaluating researcher performance. However, a gap persists between the scale of implementation of such tools and the level of understanding of their managerial consequences. The aim of this study is to analyze platformization and metric‑oriented mechanisms as elements of state science and personnel policy, identify their associated effects and risks, and propose ways to improve regulatory frameworks. Methods. The research is grounded in institutional and problem‑oriented approaches, which allow examining digital platforms and scientometric indicators through the lens of power distribution and means of influencing the behavior of scientific actors. The study employs an analysis of regulatory and programmatic documents in the field of science and higher education, as well as a comparative‑analytical method to identify managerial limitations of digital tools. Results. It is shown that the personnel structure of Russian science is characterized by a declining number of researchers, age imbalances, and low postgraduate training effectiveness, which intensifies the need for new managerial solutions. Using the Unified Digital Platform for Scientific and Technical Interaction (UDP) as an example, the transition to a “single window” model combining service and control functions is demonstrated. Six groups of risks associated with metric‑oriented governance are identified: methodological, behavioral (KPI traps), personnel‑related, ethical, institutional‑disciplinary, and those linked to loss of managerial contextual sensitivity. Discussion. The necessity of synthesizing quantitative metrics with contextual analytics, expert assessments, and personnel support mechanisms within platform‑based governance models is substantiated. Further development of such tools should take into account the identified risks to ensure sustainable reproduction of scientific potential.
