Предисловие ко второму изданию «Руководства по наукометрии: индикаторы развития науки и технологии»
Научная статья
Для цитирования
Пендлбери Д., Адамс Д., Шомшор М., Богоров В. Г. Предисловие ко второму изданию «Руководства по наукометрии: индикаторы развития науки и технологии» // Управление наукой: теория и практика. 2020. Том 2. № 4. С. 118-132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2020.2.4.5
Аннотация
В декабре 2020 года выходит второе издание «Руководства по наукометрии: индикаторы развития науки и технологии». За шесть лет с момента выхода первого издания в России заметно вырос интерес к наукометрии и её практическому применению, появились российские центры наукометрии. Предисловие к новому изданию представляет самостоятельный интерес и с любезного разрешения правообладателя компании Clarivate Analytics публикуется на русском языке.
Ключевые слова:
измерение в науке, наукометрия, ISSI, ISI, научная политика, Юджин Гарфилд, анализ цитируемости, научное картирование, альтметрики
Литература
1. Measurement in Science // Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2020. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/measurement-science/notes.html#note-1 (дата обращения: 12.09.2020).
2. Price D. Little Science, Big Science. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1963.
3. Налимов В. В., Мульченко З. М. Наукометрия. Изучение развития науки как информационного процесса. М.: Наука, 1969. 192 с.
4. Narin F., Hamilton K. S., Olivastro D. The Development of Science Indicators in the United States // The Web of Knowledge. A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield / Ed. by B. Cronin, H. B. Atkins. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc., 2000. Pp. 337–360.
5. Incentives and Performance: Governance of Research Organizations / Ed. by I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, M. Osterloh. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2015.
6. Moed H. F., Halevi G. Multidimensional Assessment of Scholarly Research Impact // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2015. Vol. 66. № 10. Pp. 1988–2002. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23314
7. Leydesdorff L., Wouters P., Bornmann L. Professional and Citizen Bibliometrics: Complementarities and Ambivalences in the Development and Use of Indicators – A State-of-the-Art Report // Scientometrics. 2016. Vol. 109. № 3. Pp. 2129–2150. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2150-8
8. Katz J. S., Hicks D. Desktop Scientometrics // Scientometrics. 1997. Vol. 38. № 1. Pp. 141–153. DOI: 10.1007/BF02461128
9. Waltman L., van Eck N. J. Field Normalization of Scientometric Indicators // Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators / Ed. by W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, M. Thelwall. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019. Pp. 281–300.
10. Bornmann L., Williams R. An Evaluation of Percentile Measures of Citation Impact, and a Proposal for Making them Better // Scientometrics. 2020 (in press). DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03512-7
11. Waltman L., van Eck N. J. Field-Normalized Citation Impact Indicators and the Choice of an Appropriate Counting Method // Journal of Informetrics. 2015. Vol. 9. № 4. Pp. 87–894. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.001
12. Adams J. The Fourth Age of Research // Nature. 2013. Vol. 497. № 7451. Pp. 557– 560. DOI: 10.1038/497557a
13. Holcombe A. O. Contributorship, not Authorship: Use CRediT to Indicate Who did What // Publications. 2019. Vol. 7. № 3. Article 48. DOI: 10.3390/publications7030048
14. Robinson-Garcia N., Rafols I. The Differing Meanings of Indicators under Different Policy Contexts. The Case of Internationalization // Evaluative Informetrics – The Art of Metrics-Based Research Assessment. Festschrift in Honour of Henk F. Moed / Ed. by C. Daraio, W. Glänzel. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2020.
15. Narin F., Hamilton K. S., Olivastro D. The Increasing Linkage between US Technology and Public Science // Research Policy. 1997. Vol. 26. № 3. Pp. 317–330. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00013-9
16. Petrovich E. Science Mapping // ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization / Ed. by B. Hjørland, C. Gnoli. International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), 2020. URL: https://www.isko.org/cyclo/science_mapping (дата обращения: 12.09.2020).
17. Igami M., Saka A. Decreasing Diversity in Japanese Science, Evidence from In-Depth Analyses of Science Maps // Scientometrics. 2016. Vol. 106. № 1. Pp. 383–403. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1648-9
18. Thijs B., Glänzel W. The Contribution of the Lexical Component in Hybrid Clustering, the Case of Four Decades of “Scientometrics” // Scientometrics. 2018. Vol.115. № 1. Pp. 21–33. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2659-0
19. Daraio C., Glänzel W. Grand Challenges in Data Integration – State of the Art and Future Perspectives: An Introduction // Scientometrics. 2016. Vol. 108. № 1. Pp. 391–400. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1914-5
20. Nederhof A. J. Bibliometric Monitoring of Research Performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review // Scientometrics. 2006. Vol. 66. № 1. Pp. 81–100. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2
21. Ferro N., Silvello G. The Road towards Reproducibility in Science: The Case of Data Citation // Digital Libraries and Archives, IRCDL 2017. Springer, 2017. Pp. 20–31. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-68130-6_2
22. Le X., Chug J., Deng S. [et al.] CiteOpinion: Evidence-Based Evaluation Tool for Academic Contributions of Research Papers Based on Citing Sentences // Journal of Data and Information Science. 2019. Vol. 4. № 4. Pp. 26–41. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2019-0019
23. Thelwall M. The Pros and Cons of the Use of Altmetrics in Research Assessment // Scholarly Assessment Reports. 2020. Vol. 2. № 1. P. 2. DOI: 10.29024/sar.10
24. Abramo G., D’Angelo C.A., Di Costa F. When Research Assessment Exercises Leave Room for Opportunistic Behavior by the Subjects under Evaluation // Journal of Informetrics. 2019. Vol. 13. № 3. Pp. 830–840. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2019.07.006
25. Sivertsen G. The Norwegian Model in Norway // Journal of Data and Information Science. 2018. Vol. 3. № 4. Pp. 3–19. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2018-0017
26. Wilsdon J., Allen L., Belfiore E. [et al.] The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. London: HEFCE, 2015. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363
27. De Rijcke S., Wouters P. F., Rushforth A. D., Franssen T. P., Hammarfelt B. Evaluation Practices and Effects of Indicator Use: A Literature Review // Research Evaluation. 2016. Vol. 25. № 2. Pp. 161–169. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvv038
28. Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research / Ed. by M. Biagioli, A. Lippman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2020.
29. Hicks D., Wouters P., Waltman L., de Rijcke S., Rafols I. The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics // Nature. 2015. Vol. 520. № 7548. Pp. 429–431. DOI: 10.1038/520429a
30. Руководство по наукометрии: индикаторы развития науки и технологии: [монография] / М. А. Акоев, В. А. Маркусова, О. В. Москалева и В. В. Писляков; [под редакцией М. А. Акоева]. Екатеринбург: Издательство Уральского университета, 2014. 250 с.
31. Adams J., McVeigh M., Pendlebury D., Szomszor M. Profiles, not Metrics. London and Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information, Clarivate Analytics. January 2019. URL: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/campaigns/profiles-not-metrics/ (дата обращения: 12.09.2020).
32. Adams J., Pendlebury D., Potter R., Szomszor M. Global Research Report: Multi-Authorship and Research Analytics. London and Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information, Clarivate Analytics. December 2019. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/campaigns/global-research-report-multi-authorship-and-research-analysis/ (дата обращения: 12.09.2020).
33. Nalimov V. V. Foreword // Garfield E. Essays of an Information Scientist. Vol. 6. Philadelphia, PA: ISI Press, 1983. Pp. xiii-xvi.
2. Price D. Little Science, Big Science. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1963.
3. Налимов В. В., Мульченко З. М. Наукометрия. Изучение развития науки как информационного процесса. М.: Наука, 1969. 192 с.
4. Narin F., Hamilton K. S., Olivastro D. The Development of Science Indicators in the United States // The Web of Knowledge. A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield / Ed. by B. Cronin, H. B. Atkins. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc., 2000. Pp. 337–360.
5. Incentives and Performance: Governance of Research Organizations / Ed. by I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, M. Osterloh. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2015.
6. Moed H. F., Halevi G. Multidimensional Assessment of Scholarly Research Impact // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2015. Vol. 66. № 10. Pp. 1988–2002. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23314
7. Leydesdorff L., Wouters P., Bornmann L. Professional and Citizen Bibliometrics: Complementarities and Ambivalences in the Development and Use of Indicators – A State-of-the-Art Report // Scientometrics. 2016. Vol. 109. № 3. Pp. 2129–2150. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2150-8
8. Katz J. S., Hicks D. Desktop Scientometrics // Scientometrics. 1997. Vol. 38. № 1. Pp. 141–153. DOI: 10.1007/BF02461128
9. Waltman L., van Eck N. J. Field Normalization of Scientometric Indicators // Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators / Ed. by W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, M. Thelwall. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019. Pp. 281–300.
10. Bornmann L., Williams R. An Evaluation of Percentile Measures of Citation Impact, and a Proposal for Making them Better // Scientometrics. 2020 (in press). DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03512-7
11. Waltman L., van Eck N. J. Field-Normalized Citation Impact Indicators and the Choice of an Appropriate Counting Method // Journal of Informetrics. 2015. Vol. 9. № 4. Pp. 87–894. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.001
12. Adams J. The Fourth Age of Research // Nature. 2013. Vol. 497. № 7451. Pp. 557– 560. DOI: 10.1038/497557a
13. Holcombe A. O. Contributorship, not Authorship: Use CRediT to Indicate Who did What // Publications. 2019. Vol. 7. № 3. Article 48. DOI: 10.3390/publications7030048
14. Robinson-Garcia N., Rafols I. The Differing Meanings of Indicators under Different Policy Contexts. The Case of Internationalization // Evaluative Informetrics – The Art of Metrics-Based Research Assessment. Festschrift in Honour of Henk F. Moed / Ed. by C. Daraio, W. Glänzel. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2020.
15. Narin F., Hamilton K. S., Olivastro D. The Increasing Linkage between US Technology and Public Science // Research Policy. 1997. Vol. 26. № 3. Pp. 317–330. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00013-9
16. Petrovich E. Science Mapping // ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization / Ed. by B. Hjørland, C. Gnoli. International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), 2020. URL: https://www.isko.org/cyclo/science_mapping (дата обращения: 12.09.2020).
17. Igami M., Saka A. Decreasing Diversity in Japanese Science, Evidence from In-Depth Analyses of Science Maps // Scientometrics. 2016. Vol. 106. № 1. Pp. 383–403. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1648-9
18. Thijs B., Glänzel W. The Contribution of the Lexical Component in Hybrid Clustering, the Case of Four Decades of “Scientometrics” // Scientometrics. 2018. Vol.115. № 1. Pp. 21–33. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2659-0
19. Daraio C., Glänzel W. Grand Challenges in Data Integration – State of the Art and Future Perspectives: An Introduction // Scientometrics. 2016. Vol. 108. № 1. Pp. 391–400. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1914-5
20. Nederhof A. J. Bibliometric Monitoring of Research Performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review // Scientometrics. 2006. Vol. 66. № 1. Pp. 81–100. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2
21. Ferro N., Silvello G. The Road towards Reproducibility in Science: The Case of Data Citation // Digital Libraries and Archives, IRCDL 2017. Springer, 2017. Pp. 20–31. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-68130-6_2
22. Le X., Chug J., Deng S. [et al.] CiteOpinion: Evidence-Based Evaluation Tool for Academic Contributions of Research Papers Based on Citing Sentences // Journal of Data and Information Science. 2019. Vol. 4. № 4. Pp. 26–41. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2019-0019
23. Thelwall M. The Pros and Cons of the Use of Altmetrics in Research Assessment // Scholarly Assessment Reports. 2020. Vol. 2. № 1. P. 2. DOI: 10.29024/sar.10
24. Abramo G., D’Angelo C.A., Di Costa F. When Research Assessment Exercises Leave Room for Opportunistic Behavior by the Subjects under Evaluation // Journal of Informetrics. 2019. Vol. 13. № 3. Pp. 830–840. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2019.07.006
25. Sivertsen G. The Norwegian Model in Norway // Journal of Data and Information Science. 2018. Vol. 3. № 4. Pp. 3–19. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2018-0017
26. Wilsdon J., Allen L., Belfiore E. [et al.] The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. London: HEFCE, 2015. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363
27. De Rijcke S., Wouters P. F., Rushforth A. D., Franssen T. P., Hammarfelt B. Evaluation Practices and Effects of Indicator Use: A Literature Review // Research Evaluation. 2016. Vol. 25. № 2. Pp. 161–169. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvv038
28. Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research / Ed. by M. Biagioli, A. Lippman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2020.
29. Hicks D., Wouters P., Waltman L., de Rijcke S., Rafols I. The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics // Nature. 2015. Vol. 520. № 7548. Pp. 429–431. DOI: 10.1038/520429a
30. Руководство по наукометрии: индикаторы развития науки и технологии: [монография] / М. А. Акоев, В. А. Маркусова, О. В. Москалева и В. В. Писляков; [под редакцией М. А. Акоева]. Екатеринбург: Издательство Уральского университета, 2014. 250 с.
31. Adams J., McVeigh M., Pendlebury D., Szomszor M. Profiles, not Metrics. London and Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information, Clarivate Analytics. January 2019. URL: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/campaigns/profiles-not-metrics/ (дата обращения: 12.09.2020).
32. Adams J., Pendlebury D., Potter R., Szomszor M. Global Research Report: Multi-Authorship and Research Analytics. London and Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information, Clarivate Analytics. December 2019. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/campaigns/global-research-report-multi-authorship-and-research-analysis/ (дата обращения: 12.09.2020).
33. Nalimov V. V. Foreword // Garfield E. Essays of an Information Scientist. Vol. 6. Philadelphia, PA: ISI Press, 1983. Pp. xiii-xvi.
Статья
Поступила: 03.11.2020
Опубликована: 23.12.2020
Форматы цитирования
Другие форматы цитирования:
APA
Пендлбери, Д., Адамс, Д., Шомшор, М., & Богоров, В. Г. (2020). Предисловие ко второму изданию «Руководства по наукометрии: индикаторы развития науки и технологии». Управление наукой: теория и практика, 2(4), 118-132. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2020.2.4.5
Раздел
Наука в зеркале наукометрии
