法律研究的评价:瑞士和荷兰国家调查结果的比较

R. V. Gestel, Karin Silvia Byland, Andrea Lienhard
{"title":"法律研究的评价:瑞士和荷兰国家调查结果的比较","authors":"R. V. Gestel, Karin Silvia Byland, Andrea Lienhard","doi":"10.5334/TILR.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Law as a discipline is lagging behind other (social) sciences when it comes to research evaluation. There is no European ranking of law journals or legal publishers, no generally accepted system of peer review, no bibliometrical databases, and no consensus on quality indicators for academic legal publications. Scholars in Switzerland and the Netherlands organized surveys to ask their colleagues how they feel about different research evaluation methods and which quality indicators they prefer for the assessment of their research. The results reveal that, unlike university managers, legal scholars have a strong preference for qualitative evaluation methods (e.g. editorial scrutiny or independent peer review) over quantitative methods, such as citation counting and ranking. However, scholars in both countries seem to be worried about the costs and bureaucracy that come along with substantive quality assessment and about the selection and instruction of reviewers.","PeriodicalId":38415,"journal":{"name":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Legal Research: Comparison of the Outcomes of a Swiss and\\n Dutch National Survey\",\"authors\":\"R. V. Gestel, Karin Silvia Byland, Andrea Lienhard\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/TILR.6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Law as a discipline is lagging behind other (social) sciences when it comes to research evaluation. There is no European ranking of law journals or legal publishers, no generally accepted system of peer review, no bibliometrical databases, and no consensus on quality indicators for academic legal publications. Scholars in Switzerland and the Netherlands organized surveys to ask their colleagues how they feel about different research evaluation methods and which quality indicators they prefer for the assessment of their research. The results reveal that, unlike university managers, legal scholars have a strong preference for qualitative evaluation methods (e.g. editorial scrutiny or independent peer review) over quantitative methods, such as citation counting and ranking. However, scholars in both countries seem to be worried about the costs and bureaucracy that come along with substantive quality assessment and about the selection and instruction of reviewers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38415,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/TILR.6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/TILR.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

法律作为一门学科在研究评估方面落后于其他(社会)科学。没有对法律期刊或法律出版商进行欧洲排名,没有普遍接受的同行评审系统,没有文献计量数据库,也没有就学术法律出版物的质量指标达成共识。瑞士和荷兰的学者组织了调查,询问他们的同事对不同的研究评估方法有何看法,以及他们更喜欢哪些质量指标来评估他们的研究。结果表明,与大学管理者不同,法律学者强烈倾向于定性评估方法(如编辑审查或独立同行评审),而不是定量方法,如引文计数和排名。然而,两国学者似乎都担心实质性质量评估带来的成本和官僚作风,以及审查人员的选择和指导。
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
Evaluation of Legal Research: Comparison of the Outcomes of a Swiss and Dutch National Survey
Law as a discipline is lagging behind other (social) sciences when it comes to research evaluation. There is no European ranking of law journals or legal publishers, no generally accepted system of peer review, no bibliometrical databases, and no consensus on quality indicators for academic legal publications. Scholars in Switzerland and the Netherlands organized surveys to ask their colleagues how they feel about different research evaluation methods and which quality indicators they prefer for the assessment of their research. The results reveal that, unlike university managers, legal scholars have a strong preference for qualitative evaluation methods (e.g. editorial scrutiny or independent peer review) over quantitative methods, such as citation counting and ranking. However, scholars in both countries seem to be worried about the costs and bureaucracy that come along with substantive quality assessment and about the selection and instruction of reviewers.
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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Perjanjian Kredit Macet Pemilikan Rumah (KPR) Terhadap Kebijakan Rumah Subsidi Pada Bank Papua Kebijakan Afirmatif Rekrutmen Anggota Polri Khusus Orang Asli Papua Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Perempuan Atas Tindak Pidana Kekerasan Dalam Rumah Tangga Penerapan Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Sanksi Kimia Dalam Penegakan Hukum Partisipasi Masyarakat Dalam Pembentukan Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Mimika
×
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