CITATION INDEX AND OBJECTIVITY OF EXPERTS. ABOUT THE POSSIBLE PHILOSOPHICAL DELIBERATIONS ON THE HOT TOPIC
Abstract
The article deals with the actual problem associated with using citation index as an instrument for evaluation of research effectiveness. The author calls in question the propriety of applying SCI: firstly, in ability of the CI to be used in order to improve the effectiveness of science, secondly, in objectivity of CI, thirdly, in the equal opportunity to apply CI to various fields of science. The author argues that SCI use as the means of assessing the effectiveness of science is possible only if the scientific community itself recognizes the CI as a significant element of research, the element of “selfPconsciousness of science”. The article also covers the alternative and no less important than the CI objective grounds for recognizing the value of research, including scientific expertise and discussion. The conclusion is that the insistence on the account of these alternatives promotes recognition of the autonomy of scientific activity, accounting for the value of novelty and originality of scientific ideas and, ultimately, the development of science.
References
1. Маркусова В.А. Кто и как измеряет науку // Независимая наука. URL: http://www.ng.ru/ science/2002P12P25/14_science. html
2. Garfield E. From the science of science to Scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software // Journal of Informetrics. 2009. No 3. P. 173–179
3. Бернал Дж. Двадцать лет спустя // Наука о науке. М.: Прогресс, 1966. C. 255–280
4. Garfield E. Tracing the influence of J.D. Bernal on the World of Science through Citation Analysis // Presented at the British Association for Crystal Growth / Irish Association for Crystal Growth Conference & Bernal Symposiumon Protein Crystallization, University College Dublin, Belfield, Ireland. September 3–4, 2007. URL: http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/bernaldublin0907.pdf
5. Малышкин Е.В. Дистрибутивность просвещенного состояния // Вестник СПбГУ. Серия 17. 2013. № 2. С. 44–50
6. Лоуренс П.А. Потерянное при публикации. Как измерение вредит науке // Игра в цифирь, или как теперь оценивают труд ученого. М.: МЦНМО, 2011. С. 39–45
7. Михайлов О.В. Блеск и нищета «индекса цитирования» // Вестник Российской академии наук. 2004. Т. 74. № 11. С. 1025– 1029
8. Бедный Б.И., Сорокин Ю.М. О показателях научного цитирования и их применении // Высшее образование в России. 2012. № 3. С. 17–28
9. Porter T.M. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995. 325 p
10. Megill A. Introduction: Four Senses of Objectivity // Rethinking Objectivity / Ed. A. Megill, Durham and Lond on, 1994. P. 1–20
11. Бажанов В.А. Математическое доказательство как форма апелляции к научному сообществу // Эпистемология и философия науки. 2011. Т. XXVIII. № 2. С. 36–54
12. Douglas H. The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity // Synthese. 2004. Vol. 138. № 3. P. 453–473
13. Мотрошилова Н.В. Система РИНЦ применительно к философским наукам // Высшее образование в России. 2013. № 3 С.3–17
14. Соколов Б.Г. Индекс Х и индекс Ц // Studia culturae. 2013. № 17. С. 167–176
Review
Views:
242
Email this article 