负责任计量与科学评价趋向

doi:10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2021.09.002

图书情报工作 ›› 2021, Vol. 65 ›› Issue (9): 16-22.DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2021.09.002

负责任计量与科学评价趋向

宋丽萍, 王修涵, 苑珊珊

天津师范大学管理学院天津 300387

收稿日期:2020-12-24 修回日期:2021-02-09 出版日期:2021-05-05 发布日期:2021-06-02
通讯作者: 王修涵(ORCID:0000-0003-1974-5080),硕士研究生,通讯作者,E-mail:wzxh118@163.com
作者简介:宋丽萍(ORCID:0000-0003-3056-3720),教授,博士,硕士生导师;苑珊珊(ORCID:0000-0002-2736-3333),硕士研究生。
基金资助:
本文系国家社会科学基金一般项目"负责任计量视角下科学评价方法与指标优化研究"（项目编号：18BTQ074）研究成果之一。

Responsible Metrics and the Trend of Research Evaluation

Song Liping, Wang Xiuhan, Yuan Shanshan

School of Management, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387

Received:2020-12-24 Revised:2021-02-09 Online:2021-05-05 Published:2021-06-02

摘要/Abstract

摘要： [目的/意义] 以负责任计量三大基础框架《旧金山宣言》《莱顿宣言》《计量潮报告》为出发点，就负责任计量视角下科学评价发展趋向进行解读。[方法/过程] 基于Web of Science，借助VOSviewer将2012-2020年论文和核心作者进行可视化，以反映该领域历时研究热点变化。[结果/结论] 基于时间线的关键词、作者叠加视图表明：计量变革正在进行中，并呈现以研究质量为圆心、科研人员为根本、学科规范化为导向、影响力为半径、引用探索为根基、补充计量为参照的发展趋向。结论指出：以负责任计量进行科学评价治理是建立健康学术生态系统的必由之路，而负责任计量的实施意味着对于根深蒂固的激励机制与计量文化的变革。

关键词: 负责任计量, 科学评价, 《旧金山宣言》, 《莱顿宣言》, 《计量潮报告》

Abstract: [Purpose/significance] Based on the three fundamental frameworks of responsible metrics:San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, Leiden Manifesto for Research Assessment and the Metric Tide, the paper interprets the development trend of research evaluation from the perspective of responsible metrics.[Method/process] The articles and core authors from 2012 to 2020 in Web of Science were used and visualized with VOSviewer, to reflect the changes of diachronic research hotspots in this field.[Result/conclusion] The timeline and overlay views for keywords and authors illustrate that the revolution in research metrics is in progress, and present the development trend with research quality as the center of the circle, researchers as foundation, field-normalization as goal orientation, research impact as radius, citation exploration as root, and altmetrics as reference. The conclusion points out that research evaluation ruled by responsible metrics is the only way to establish a healthy academic ecosystem, however, it is clear that the revolution for deep-rooted academic ecosystem and incentive mechanism is needed.

Key words: responsible metrics, research evaluation, DORA, Leiden Manifesto, the Metric Tide

中图分类号:

G250.252

宋丽萍, 王修涵, 苑珊珊. 负责任计量与科学评价趋向[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(9): 16-22.

Song Liping, Wang Xiuhan, Yuan Shanshan. Responsible Metrics and the Trend of Research Evaluation[J]. Library and Information Service, 2021, 65(9): 16-22.

参考文献

[1] WILSDON J,ALLEN L,BELFIORE E,et al.The metric tide:report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management[M]. London:SAGE Publications Ltd, 2015.
[2] WILSDON J. Has the tide turned towards responsible metrics in research?[N]. The guardian,2018-07-10(1).
[3] San Francisco declaration on research assessment[EB/OL].[2020-09-23]. http://www.ascb.org/dora/.
[4] HICKS D,WOUTERS P,WALTMAN L,et al.Bibliometrics:the Leiden manifesto for research metrics[J].Nature,2015, 520(7548):429-431.
[5] CASSIDY R S. Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication[M].Berlin:De Gruyter,2016.
[6] WILSDON J. UK progress towards the use of metrics responsibly:three years on from The Metric Tide report.[EB/OL].[2021-03-23].https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/31945/1/UK%20progress%20towards%20the%20use%20of%20metrics%20responsibly%2010072018.pdf.
[7] 李杰.科学知识图谱原理及应用——VOSviewer和CitNetExplorer初学者指南[M]. 北京:高等教育出版社,2018.
[8] GUÉDON J C,KRAMER B,LAAKSO M,et al.Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communicate on:report of the expert group to the European commission[EB/OL].[2020-09-06].https://op.e-ur-opa.e-u/en/publication-detail/-/publication/464477b3-2559-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1.
[9] STEPHAN P,VEUGELERS R,WANG J. Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics[J]. Nature,2017,544(7651):411-412.
[10] LANE J. Let's make science metrics more scientific[J]. Nature,2010,464(7288):488-489.
[11] CURRY S. Let's move beyond the rhetoric:it's time to change how we judge research[J]. Nature,2018,554(7691):147.
[12] HILL S. Four trends shaping the future of research evaluation[EB/OL].[2020-09-06]. https://figshare.c-om/articles/Four_trends_shaping_the_future_of_research_evaluation/11918130/1.
[13] WOUTERS P, SUGIMOTO C R, LARIVIōRE V, et al.Rethinking impact factors:better ways to judge a journal[J]. Nature,2019, 569(7758):621-623.
[14] WALTMAN L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators[J]. Journal of informetrics,2016,10(2):365-391.
[15] VAN NOORDEN R. Interdisciplinary research by the numbers[J]. Nature,2015,525(7569):306-307.
[16] STERN N. Lord Stern's review of the research excellence framework:call for evidence[EB/OL].[2020-09-08].https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/74380480.pdf.
[17] Research excellence framework 2021[EB/OL].[2020-09-08]. https://www.ref.ac.uk/.
[18] PARKS S.The changing research landscape and reflections on national research assessment in the future[EB/OL].[2020-09-08]. https://re.ukri.org/documents/2019/rand-europe-full-report/.
[19] BORNMANN L.Scientific revolution in scientometrics:The broadening of impact from citation to societal[M]//CASSIDY R S. Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication[M].Berlin:De Gruyter.2016:347-359.
[20] BORNMANN L, HAUNSCHILD R.Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? an empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)[J]. Journal of informetrics,2019,13(1):325-340.
[21] MACROBERTS M H, MACROBERTS B R. The mismeasure of science:Citation analysis[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology,2017,69(3):474-482.
[22] BORNMANN L, HAUNSCHILD R. To what extent does the Leiden manifesto also apply to altmetrics?[J]. A discussion of the manifesto against the background of research into altmetrics,2016,40(4):529-543.
[23] DAVID J. What are responsible metrics[EB/OL].[2020-09-06]. http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/the_orb/?p=3242.
[24] THELWALL M. Measuring societal impacts of research with altmetrics? common problems and mistakes[EB/OL].[2020-09-08].https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/joes.12381.
[25] MOED H F. Applied evaluative informetrics[M]. Berlin:Springer International Publishing, 2017.
[26] LARIVIERE V, SUGIMOTO C R. The journal impact factor:a brief history,critique, and discussion of adverse effects[C]//GLÄNZEL W, MOED H F. Springer handbook of science and technology indicators. Berlin:Springer, 2019:3-24.
[27] BORNMANN L,HUG S,MAREWSKI J N. Bibliometrics-based heuristics:what is their definition and how can they be studied?[EB/OL].[2020-09-08]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.13005v1.

负责任计量与科学评价趋向

Responsible Metrics and the Trend of Research Evaluation

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	步一, 黄圣智, 黄永, 陆伟. 学者研究主题演化的时空测度:速度、覆盖度和迂回度[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(24): 84-91.
[2]	李昕雨, 雷佳琪, 步一. 我国图书情报学作者自引行为研究初探[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(20): 162-171.
[3]	张洋, 朱嘉麒, 王媛媛, 侯剑华. 图情学科研究的范式思考——以科学评价为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(12): 20-26.
[4]	温芳芳. 自引研究综述:科学评价与科学交流中的质疑、求证与创新[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(21): 117-127.
[5]	宋丽萍, 王建芳. 基于学科规范引文影响力与同行评议相关性的科学评价实证研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(18): 122-128.
[6]	楼雯, 樊宇航, 姜晓烨. 学科排名对美国iSchool教师就业的影响[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(10): 14-21.
[7]	刘春丽. altmetrics:从理论假说、术语提出到内涵的重新界定[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(6): 82-89.
[8]	邱均平, 张心源, 董克. Altmetrics指标在机构知识库中的应用研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(2): 100-105.
[9]	宋丽萍, 王建芳, 刘芮. 基于主成分分析的科学评价维度研究——以PLoS ONE为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2014, 58(17): 119-124.
[10]	张学梅. h_i指数——一种对h指数进行迭代计算的个人学术影响力评价方法[J]. 图书情报工作, 2013, 57(11): 96-99,119.
[11]	许海云, 方曙. 非参数统计的期刊影响力评价方法研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2013, 57(05): 107-113.
[12]	贺颖邱均平. 同行评议专家遴选的科学计量方法与实证研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2012, 56(06): 33-37.
[13]	王宏鑫. 评价学：从实践到理论的飞跃——读《评价学：理论·方法·实践》[J]. 图书情报工作, 2011, 54(17): 138-143.
[14]	许海云方曙. 人文社会科学评价中“质”与“量”相结合的评价框架研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2011, 55(10): 60-64.
[15]	Ronald Rousseau 杨立英. 《科学计量评价指标》评述[J]. 图书情报工作, 2010, 54(22): 147-148.