规划和评估科学技术的度量标准

R. Kostoff
{"title":"规划和评估科学技术的度量标准","authors":"R. Kostoff","doi":"10.5172/IMPP.1998.1.2-3.30","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"SummaryMetrics, those criteria applied to assess the potential, current or past performance of technologies and/or individuals, are of increasing interest to those involved in research commercialization. Debates on metrics focus to a considerable extent on mechanisms for ensuring the objectivity and credibility of the processes by which evaluation criteria are selected. Many experts have concluded that metrics commonly applied to S&T assessments suffer from the “you get what you measure” bias. This article presents ten principles and seven critical factors developed by the author in the course of extensive research into the development of effective metrics for assessing scientific and technological (S&T) outcomes.","PeriodicalId":13564,"journal":{"name":"Innovation-management Policy & Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metrics for planning and evaluating science and technology\",\"authors\":\"R. Kostoff\",\"doi\":\"10.5172/IMPP.1998.1.2-3.30\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"SummaryMetrics, those criteria applied to assess the potential, current or past performance of technologies and/or individuals, are of increasing interest to those involved in research commercialization. Debates on metrics focus to a considerable extent on mechanisms for ensuring the objectivity and credibility of the processes by which evaluation criteria are selected. Many experts have concluded that metrics commonly applied to S&T assessments suffer from the “you get what you measure” bias. This article presents ten principles and seven critical factors developed by the author in the course of extensive research into the development of effective metrics for assessing scientific and technological (S&T) outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Innovation-management Policy & Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Innovation-management Policy & Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5172/IMPP.1998.1.2-3.30\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovation-management Policy & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5172/IMPP.1998.1.2-3.30","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

用于评估技术和/或个人的潜在、当前或过去性能的标准,对那些参与研究商业化的人越来越感兴趣。关于量度的辩论在很大程度上集中在确保选择评价标准的过程的客观性和可信性的机制上。许多专家得出结论,通常应用于科技评估的指标存在“你得到你所测量的”的偏见。本文介绍了作者在广泛研究制定科技成果评估有效指标的过程中提出的十条原则和七个关键因素。
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
Metrics for planning and evaluating science and technology
SummaryMetrics, those criteria applied to assess the potential, current or past performance of technologies and/or individuals, are of increasing interest to those involved in research commercialization. Debates on metrics focus to a considerable extent on mechanisms for ensuring the objectivity and credibility of the processes by which evaluation criteria are selected. Many experts have concluded that metrics commonly applied to S&T assessments suffer from the “you get what you measure” bias. This article presents ten principles and seven critical factors developed by the author in the course of extensive research into the development of effective metrics for assessing scientific and technological (S&T) outcomes.
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
Case Study: KACST Technology Innovation Centers (TICs): The Case of the TIC in Radio Frequency and Photonics for the e-Society Social capital and investment in agriculture: three networks converge with implications for Australia’s rural research system Research Note: The U.S. Advanced Manufacturing Initiative: Will it be Implemented as an Innovation – or Industrial – Policy? THE USE OF AUTOMAKERS’ KNOWLEDGE IN THE COMPONENTS SUPPLIER’S INNOVATIONS: DIFFERENT EFFECTS IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS The institutional framework of inter- and intra-organizational transferred knowledge applying
×
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