关于人文学科研究评估和计量使用的四个主张

Björn Hammarfelt
{"title":"关于人文学科研究评估和计量使用的四个主张","authors":"Björn Hammarfelt","doi":"10.1002/bul2.2017.1720430508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p>EDITOR'S SUMMARY</p>\n <p>Bibliometric evaluation for research in the field of sciences can be a good way to assess the quality and factual basis of claims and can lead to more funding for authors and for research work. However, due to the more diverse fields covered, this type of evaluation is less effective in the world of humanities. Many professionals and researchers in humanities fields believe that bibliometric evaluation is meant only for STEM research and can't properly assess any findings made in humanities. Four common claims made about bibliometrics in humanities are that bibliometrics do not adequately cover the non-uniform nature of humanities; greater bibliometric coverage will not solve all the research problems in humanities subjects; metrics use already has an impact on humanities research practices and finally; other evaluation methods, like altmetrics, are conventional.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100205,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology","volume":"43 5","pages":"33-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bul2.2017.1720430508","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Four Claims on Research Assessment and Metric Use in the Humanities\",\"authors\":\"Björn Hammarfelt\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bul2.2017.1720430508\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n <p>EDITOR'S SUMMARY</p>\\n <p>Bibliometric evaluation for research in the field of sciences can be a good way to assess the quality and factual basis of claims and can lead to more funding for authors and for research work. However, due to the more diverse fields covered, this type of evaluation is less effective in the world of humanities. Many professionals and researchers in humanities fields believe that bibliometric evaluation is meant only for STEM research and can't properly assess any findings made in humanities. Four common claims made about bibliometrics in humanities are that bibliometrics do not adequately cover the non-uniform nature of humanities; greater bibliometric coverage will not solve all the research problems in humanities subjects; metrics use already has an impact on humanities research practices and finally; other evaluation methods, like altmetrics, are conventional.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100205,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology\",\"volume\":\"43 5\",\"pages\":\"33-38\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bul2.2017.1720430508\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bul2.2017.1720430508\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bul2.2017.1720430508","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

科学领域研究的文献计量学评估是评估论文质量和事实基础的好方法,可以为作者和研究工作带来更多的资助。然而,由于涵盖的领域更加多样化,这种评估方式在人文学科领域的效果较差。许多人文学科领域的专业人士和研究人员认为,文献计量学评价只适用于STEM研究,不能正确评估人文学科的任何研究成果。关于人文学科文献计量学的四个常见主张是:文献计量学没有充分涵盖人文学科的非统一性;扩大文献计量学的覆盖范围并不能解决人文学科的所有研究问题;指标的使用已经对人文学科的研究实践产生了影响;其他评估方法,如altmetrics,是传统的。
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
Four Claims on Research Assessment and Metric Use in the Humanities

EDITOR'S SUMMARY

Bibliometric evaluation for research in the field of sciences can be a good way to assess the quality and factual basis of claims and can lead to more funding for authors and for research work. However, due to the more diverse fields covered, this type of evaluation is less effective in the world of humanities. Many professionals and researchers in humanities fields believe that bibliometric evaluation is meant only for STEM research and can't properly assess any findings made in humanities. Four common claims made about bibliometrics in humanities are that bibliometrics do not adequately cover the non-uniform nature of humanities; greater bibliometric coverage will not solve all the research problems in humanities subjects; metrics use already has an impact on humanities research practices and finally; other evaluation methods, like altmetrics, are conventional.

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
Four Claims on Research Assessment and Metric Use in the Humanities Using Zombies to Teach Collaborative Scholarship and Born-Digital Publishing 2016 ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Diversity and Inclusion Luncheon: Report and Recommendations Open Access Publishing Models and How OA Can Work in the Humanities Collaboration in the Spotlight: The Open Symphony Case
×
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