Везде
The problem of evaluation of scientific results: fetishization of bibliometrics or common sense
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
The problem of evaluation of scientific results: fetishization of bibliometrics or common sense
Annotation
PII
S013207690003650-7-
DOI
10.31857/S013207690003650-7
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Vladimir Tolstik 
ORCID: 0000-0001-5834-9561
Affiliation: Nizhniy Novgorod Academy of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs
Address: Russian Federation
Edition
Issue 1
Pages
65-74
Abstract

The article analyzes the positive and negative consequences of using bibliometric tools to evaluate the results of scientific activity. The necessity of refusal from the official evaluation of the results of scientific activity of scientists and scientific (educational) organizations on the basis of the criterion of publication activity and relevant indicators is substantiated. It is offered to develop and approve the code of scientific ethics, the problem not only quantitative, but also thorough qualitative (substantial) systematization of scientific knowledge is activated.

Keywords
evaluation criterion, bibliometric approach, publication activity, systematization of scientific knowledge, scientific ethics
Received
20.02.2019
Date of publication
22.02.2019
Number of purchasers
96
Views
2610
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Previous versions
S013207690003650-7-1 Дата внесения правок в статью - 10.01.2019
Cite   Download pdf

References

1. Bredikhin S. V., Kuznetsov A. Yu. Metody bibliometrii i rynok ehlektronnoj nauchnoj periodiki. Novosibirsk, M., 2012.

2. Bredikhin S. V., Kuznetsov A. Yu., Scherbakova N. G. Analiz tsitirovaniya v bibliometrii. Novosibirsk, M., 2013.

3. Idei i chisla. Osnovaniya i kriterii otsenki rezul'tativnosti filosofskikh i sotsiogumanitarnykh issledovanij. M., 2016. C. 153, 154.

4. Kodeks nauchnoj ehtiki. URL: http://www.courieredu.ru/cour0601/600.htm

5. Lazarev V. V. Yuridicheskaya nauka: prodolzhenie polemiki // LEX RUSSICA. 2015. № 11. S. 10—24.

6. Leont'ev A. N. Deyatel'nost', soznanie, lichnost'. 2-e izd. M., 1977. S. 210.

7. Nauchnaya ehtika [Ehlektronnyj resurs] – Rezhim dostupa: URL: https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/599886 (data obrascheniya: 20.05.2018).

8. Pipiya L. K. K voprosu ob otsenke rezul'tatov nauchnoj deyatel'nosti [Ehlektronnyj resurs] – Rezhim dostupa: URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/k-voprosu-ob-otsenke-rezultatov-nauchnoydeyatelnosti (data obrascheniya: 20.05.2018).

9. Polyakov S. B. Diagnostika pravosoznaniya pravoprimenitelej: ucheb. posobie. Perm', 2017. S. 5.

10. Psikhologicheskij slovar'. URL: http://psi.webzone.ru/st/054700.htm

11. Sverdlov E. D. Stat'ya mozhet khorosho tsitirovat'sya potomu, chto ona oshibochna. URL: https://indicator.ru/article/2018/02/07/impakt-faktor/

12. Tolstik V. A. Ot plyuralizma pravoponimaniya k bor'be za soderzhanie prava // Gosudarstvo i pravo. 2004. № 9. S. 13—21.

13. Tolstik V. A., Trusov N. A. Bor'ba za soderzhanie prava. N. Novgorod, 2008.

14. Filosofiya, bibliometriya i upravlenie naukoj [Ehlektronnyj resurs] – Rezhim dostupa: URL: https://iphras.ru/uplfile/ideol/bibliometr/Phil_bibl_2.html (data obrascheniya: 20.05.2018).

15. Ehticheskij kodeks [Ehlektronnyj resurs] – Rezhim dostupa: URL: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate