论科学文献的价值。第二部分

V. Lazarev
{"title":"论科学文献的价值。第二部分","authors":"V. Lazarev","doi":"10.19181/smtp.2024.6.1.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After a critical consideration – through the prism of unspecified concepts of the value and quality of a scientific document – of examples of terminological confusion about the designation of a property of a scientific document represented by its citedness and use (that was given in the first part of the article), further consideration of the issue of the property being represented is provided. The need to continue the in-depth analysis and appropriate polemics as well as to strengthen the argument that the citedness of scientific documents directly represents their use, which, in its turn, represents their value, is caused by the fact that a number of experts either do not associate citation rate with value, or are indifferent to the issue of the property of documents represented by their citedness, or confuse the value of a document with its quality. Moreover, there is an authoritative point of view according to which the use is only one of the factors that cause scientific documents to be cited; while just access to experts' documents is considered, on the contrary, as an undoubted evidence of their use – though in this case it remains unknown whether the full text of the requested document would be at least briefly browsed by the user. The author gives a critical consideration of these issues. An opinion is expressed that a certain misunderstanding of the concept “use of a document” is due to its involuntary confusion with the traditional library concept “use of a library stock”. It is also shown that taking the philosophical notion of value for consideration can add even more confusion to the terminology used to denote a property of a scientific document represented by its citedness par excellence. The author makes an attempt to clarify the concepts and content of the terms “value of a scientific document” and “use of a scientific document”.\n","PeriodicalId":433804,"journal":{"name":"Science Management: Theory and Practice","volume":" September","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Value of a Scientific Document. Part 2\",\"authors\":\"V. Lazarev\",\"doi\":\"10.19181/smtp.2024.6.1.9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"After a critical consideration – through the prism of unspecified concepts of the value and quality of a scientific document – of examples of terminological confusion about the designation of a property of a scientific document represented by its citedness and use (that was given in the first part of the article), further consideration of the issue of the property being represented is provided. The need to continue the in-depth analysis and appropriate polemics as well as to strengthen the argument that the citedness of scientific documents directly represents their use, which, in its turn, represents their value, is caused by the fact that a number of experts either do not associate citation rate with value, or are indifferent to the issue of the property of documents represented by their citedness, or confuse the value of a document with its quality. Moreover, there is an authoritative point of view according to which the use is only one of the factors that cause scientific documents to be cited; while just access to experts' documents is considered, on the contrary, as an undoubted evidence of their use – though in this case it remains unknown whether the full text of the requested document would be at least briefly browsed by the user. The author gives a critical consideration of these issues. An opinion is expressed that a certain misunderstanding of the concept “use of a document” is due to its involuntary confusion with the traditional library concept “use of a library stock”. It is also shown that taking the philosophical notion of value for consideration can add even more confusion to the terminology used to denote a property of a scientific document represented by its citedness par excellence. The author makes an attempt to clarify the concepts and content of the terms “value of a scientific document” and “use of a scientific document”.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":433804,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science Management: Theory and Practice\",\"volume\":\" September\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science Management: Theory and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2024.6.1.9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Management: Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2024.6.1.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在通过科学文献的价值和质量的不明确概念的棱镜,批判性地审议了关于科学文献的引 用性和使用性所代表的属性的术语混乱的例子(这已在文章的第一部分给出)之后,对所代 表的属性问题进行了进一步的审议。之所以需要继续进行深入分析和适当的论战,以及加强科学文献的被引率直接代表其用途,而用途又代表其价值的论点,是因为许多专家要么不把被引率与价值联系起来,要么对文献的被引率所代表的属性问题漠不关心,要么把文献的价值与质量混为一谈。此外,还有一种权威观点认为,使用仅仅是导致科学文献被引用的因素之一;相反,仅仅获取专家文献则被认为是其使用的确凿证据--尽管在这种情况下,用户是否会至少短暂浏览过所需文献的全文仍是未知数。作者对这些问题进行了批判性的思考。作者认为,对 "使用文献 "概念的某种误解是由于它与传统图书馆概念 "使用图书馆库存 "不自觉地混淆了。此外,作者还指出,如果考虑到价值这一哲学概念,就会使用于表示科学文献属性的术语更加混乱,而这一属性就是其卓越的被引性。作者试图澄清 "科学文献的价值 "和 "科学文献的使用 "这两个术语的概念和内涵。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On the Value of a Scientific Document. Part 2
After a critical consideration – through the prism of unspecified concepts of the value and quality of a scientific document – of examples of terminological confusion about the designation of a property of a scientific document represented by its citedness and use (that was given in the first part of the article), further consideration of the issue of the property being represented is provided. The need to continue the in-depth analysis and appropriate polemics as well as to strengthen the argument that the citedness of scientific documents directly represents their use, which, in its turn, represents their value, is caused by the fact that a number of experts either do not associate citation rate with value, or are indifferent to the issue of the property of documents represented by their citedness, or confuse the value of a document with its quality. Moreover, there is an authoritative point of view according to which the use is only one of the factors that cause scientific documents to be cited; while just access to experts' documents is considered, on the contrary, as an undoubted evidence of their use – though in this case it remains unknown whether the full text of the requested document would be at least briefly browsed by the user. The author gives a critical consideration of these issues. An opinion is expressed that a certain misunderstanding of the concept “use of a document” is due to its involuntary confusion with the traditional library concept “use of a library stock”. It is also shown that taking the philosophical notion of value for consideration can add even more confusion to the terminology used to denote a property of a scientific document represented by its citedness par excellence. The author makes an attempt to clarify the concepts and content of the terms “value of a scientific document” and “use of a scientific document”.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
On the Separation of Scientific Activity and the State-owned Corporate Form of Science Management in Contemporary Russia. Part 1 Jurisprudence for the Development of Science: Ideas that Should Not Be Forgotten (To the 100th Anniversary of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the RF) The State Policy of the USSR in Relation to the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in the Second Half of the 20th Century. The Organizational and Legal Aspect Introduction of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Russian Economy: A Practitioner’s View Digitalization of Public Administration and Economy: Terminological Clarity as a Factor of Success of Digital Development. Review of the Textbook “Digital State and Economy” Edited by S. E. Prokofiev, O. V. Panina and K. V. Kharchenko
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1