Szkic aktualnej debaty nad naukometrią i bibliometrią w Polsce i zapomniane naukoznawstwo

Author:

Kokowski MichałORCID

Abstract

In the debate on scientometrics and bibliometrics, taking place in Poland in the last 25 years, a very serious methodical and methodological mistake has been committed by neglecting the reflection about the science of science, especially of historical and methodological character. The following article discusses this issue. This aim was achieved with the use of a method of interdisciplinary research originating from the scope of the science of science and the history of the science of science. This method was applied to the analysis of selected major publications on scientometrics and bibliometrics in the past 25 years, with special emphasis on Polish context. The results are discussed in the article, i.e. a) the context of the current debate on scientometrics and bibliometrics in Poland; b) the history of Polish scientometric analyses based on foreign indexation databases; c) the current discussion on scientometrics and bibliometrics in Poland and d) the key aspect ignored in the current debate, namely the inseparable connection of scientometrics and bibliometrics with the science of science. The study leads to the following conclusions: it is postulated that the informetric (scientometric, bibliometric, Webometric, etc.) studies return to the scientific discourse, which would be consciously developed in the context of the integrated science of science. This knowledge should be utilized in the development of the current science policy, i.e. the organizational structure of science and higher education and the formation of rules of appraisal of scientific institutions, individual employees and scientific journals.

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.

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