[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。
[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.
[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.
