Jakiej naukometrii i bibliometrii potrzebujemy w Polsce ?

Author:

Kokowski MichałORCID

Abstract

The aim of this research study and review article is to examine the scientific basis of scientometrics and bibliometrics, i.e. to show their real “detection and measurement” capabilities. The analysis is conducted from the author’s perspective of the integrated science of science and the history and methodology of the science of science following this perspective. Particular emphasis is placed on the history and methodology of scientometrics and bibliometrics and the history and methodology of science. This perspective is a new approach to the subject matter and determines a) how to select publications and their interpretations and b) which hierarchy the analyzed issues should follow. The article describes the view, dominant both in the world and in Poland, on the basics of scientometrics and bibliometrics and their numerous serious scientific restrictions, such as: a) the incompatibility of the so‑called scientometric laws and the Garfield law of concentration with the empirical data; b) the domain bias, the language bias and the geographical bias of indexation databases; c) various practices of scientific communication; d) the local (national or state‑ level) orientation of humanities, social sciences and citation indexes; e) the disadvantages of the impact factor (IF), the manipulations with its values and the “impact factor game”; f) the numerous problems with and abuses of citations, e.g. the Mendel syndrome, the “classic” publication bias, the palimpsestic syndrome, the effect of the disappearance of citations, the so‑called Matthew effect, the theft of citations, the so‑called secondary and tertiary citations, negative citations, “fashionable nonsenses”, forced citations, the pathologies of the so‑ called citation cartels or cooperative citations, the guest authorship and the honorable authorship; g) the distinction between the “impact of publication” and the “importance of publication” or the “significance” of publication; h) the effectiveness of indexation of publications in electronic and Internet databases and the technological modernity of publications. The discovery of such restrictions regarding scientometrics and bibliometrics has led to the creation of, among others, biobibliometrics, alternative metrics (“altmetrics”) and the open science movement. The analysis of this information results in a general conclusion that is relevant to the current scientific policy in Poland, i.e. it is necessary to resist the “tyranny of bibliometrics”, because it does not serve the development of science. As a consequence, the use of scientometric methods in evaluations of scientific activities should be limited, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. The article also advocates for implementing the idea, considered as priority, of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, which is the promotion of the achievements of Polish humanities and social sciences at home and abroad. In order to achieve this aim, the following is proposed: a) developing the integrated science of science (as protection against the numerous errors of scientometrics and bibliometrics); b) expanding indexation databases of publications, digital libraries and digital repositories; c) intensifying the participation of Polish scientists in international research, including becoming actively involved in the international project aiming at building a European indexation database for humanities and social sciences, d) developing open access to scientific contents and e) modernizing Polish scientific journals and scientific publishing.

Publisher

Uniwersytet Jagiellonski - Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego

Reference29 articles.

1. Odnośniki dotyczące literatury z zakresu naukometrii – bibliometrii – informetrii, zob. Kokowski 2015.

2. Aguillo, Isidro; Bar-Ilan, Judit; Levene, Mark; Ortega, José 2010: Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics 85(1), pp. 243–256. DOI:10.1007/s11192-010-0190-z. Available online: http://www.akademiai.com/doi/abs/10.1007/s11192-010-0190-z.

3. Bastow, Simon; Dunleavy, Patrick; Tinkler, Jane 2014: The Impact of the Social Sciences: How Academics and their Research Make a Difference. Sage. ISBN 978-4462-7509-2. Available online: http://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/59598_Bastow__Impact_of_the_social_sciences.pdf.

4. Bloomberg Rankings 2014: Most Innovative in the World 2014: Countries. Available online: http://images.businessweek.com/bloomberg/pdfs/most_innovative_countries_2014_011714.pdf.

5. Cameron, William Bruce 1963: Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking. New York: Random House. Available online: https://books.google.pl/books/about/Informal_sociology.html?id=I6JIAAAAMAAJ.

Cited by 10 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3