Key Points of Discussion in Scientific Research Evaluation: Peer Review, Bibliometrics and Relevance

被引：7

作者：

Fernanda Sarthou, Nerina ^{[1
,2
,3
]}

机构：

[1] Univ Nacl San Martin, Ciencia Polit, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina

[2] Consejo Nacl Invest Cient & Tecn, RA-1033 Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina

[3] Univ Nacl Ctr Prov, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina

来源：

REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS SOCIALES | 2016年 / 58期

关键词：

Bibliometrics (Thesaurus); research evaluation; peer review; relevance (Author's keywords); SCIENCE; IMPACT; POLICY; STATE; BIAS;

D O I：

10.7440/res58.2016.06

中图分类号：

D58 [社会生活与社会问题]; C913 [社会生活与社会问题];

学科分类号：

摘要：

This article seeks to bring together in a single document the set of issues surrounding the definition and implementation of mechanisms and criteria relating to the evaluation of scientific research. It revisits and orders the basic agreements regarding their defects and the proposals for countering them based on a bibliographical review revolving around three questions: who participates in the assessment; how the assessment is carried out; and what is to be evaluated. Finally, it briefly presents some notes referring to the specific literature generated from Latin America, highlighting the limited space dedicated to this topic until now.

引用

页码：76 / 86

页数：11

共 39 条

[21] The peer review and the training of the researcher: evaluation of scientific knowledge in the perspective of an intellectual ontogenesis
Nascimento da Silva, Claudio Nei
Machado Mueller, Suzana Pinheiro
BIBLIOS-REVISTA DE BIBLIOTECOLOGIA Y CIENCIAS DE LA INFORMACION, 2019, (76): : 23 - 34
[22] Peer Review Research Evaluation in Iran: Strengths, Weaknesses and Suggestions
Eftekhari, Monir-Baradaran
Ebachfar, Asghar
Ghalenoee, Elham
Falahat, Katayoun
IRANIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2021, 50 (06) : 1260 - 1265
[23] Supporting Scientific Writing and Evaluation in a Conceptual Physics Course with Calibrated Peer Review
Price, Edward
Goldberg, Fred
Patterson, Scott
Heft, Paul
2012 PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH CONFERENCE, 2013, 1513 : 318 - 321
[24] Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals
Fogelholm, Mikael
Leppinen, Saara
Auvinen, Anssi
Raitanen, Jani
Nuutinen, Anu
Vaananen, Kalervo
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2012, 65 (01) : 47 - 52
[25] Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Points to Consider: Primary Digital Histopathology Evaluation and Peer Review for Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) Nonclinical Toxicology Studies
Forest, Thomas
Aeffner, Famke
Bangari, Dinesh S.
Bawa, Bhupinder
Carter, Jonathan
Fikes, James
High, Wanda
Hayashi, Shim-Mo
Jacobsen, Matthew
McKinney, LuAnn
Rudmann, Daniel
Steinbach, Thomas
Schumacher, Vanessa
Turner, Oliver
Ward, Jerrold M.
Willson, Cynthia J.
TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY, 2022, 50 (04) : 531 - 543
[26] The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods
Smit, Jorrit P.
Hessels, Laurens K.
RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2021, 30 (03) : 323 - 335
[27] Data-driven performance evaluation and optimization system for peer review of research institutions in universities
Liu, Chuanbin
Wang, Dan
Zou, Zhe
Liu, Nan
Zhu, Hengkun
Yu, Lean
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GENERAL SYSTEMS, 2025,
[28] Do open citations give insights on the qualitative peer-review evaluation in research assessments? An analysis of the Italian National Scientific Qualification
Bologna, Federica
Di Iorio, Angelo
Peroni, Silvio
Poggi, Francesco
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2023, 128 (01) : 19 - 53
[29] Improving the peer-review process and editorial quality: key errors escaping the review and editorial process in top scientific journals
Margalida, Antoni
Angels Colomer, Ma
PEERJ, 2016, 4
[30] Peer review: problem or solution in relation to publication bias, transparency and the internationalisation of scientific research outputs?
O'Connor, S. J.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE, 2012, 21 (06) : 701 - 702

← 1 2 3 4 →