On Expert Evaluation of the Scientific Research Effectiveness

G. Shepelev
{"title":"On Expert Evaluation of the Scientific Research Effectiveness","authors":"G. Shepelev","doi":"10.19181/smtp.2022.4.4.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The general approaches to expertise in assessing the effectiveness of the scientific and technical sphere are considered. The roles of the participants of the examination – the decision-maker, the organizer of the examination, experts, and other interested participants in the results of the examination are considered. The general requirements for experts, such as qualification, objectivity, independence of the expert, possible conflicts of interests of the participants of the examination, are analyzed. The implementation of the theoretical provisions of the organization of expertise on practical examples is considered. It is shown that expert assessments in the analysis of the effectiveness of scientific organizations can lead to unreliable results, as well as the use of scientometric performance indicators outside the zone of their applicability.Some basic scientometric indicators are considered, it is shown that they can be considered as formalized answers to examination questions. The dependence of scientometric indicators on the scale of the audience to which certain publications are published is shown. Possible changes in the scientometric indicators of Russian publications are predicted in conditions of limited access of Russian publications to world information systems.","PeriodicalId":433804,"journal":{"name":"Science Management: Theory and Practice","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Management: Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2022.4.4.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The general approaches to expertise in assessing the effectiveness of the scientific and technical sphere are considered. The roles of the participants of the examination – the decision-maker, the organizer of the examination, experts, and other interested participants in the results of the examination are considered. The general requirements for experts, such as qualification, objectivity, independence of the expert, possible conflicts of interests of the participants of the examination, are analyzed. The implementation of the theoretical provisions of the organization of expertise on practical examples is considered. It is shown that expert assessments in the analysis of the effectiveness of scientific organizations can lead to unreliable results, as well as the use of scientometric performance indicators outside the zone of their applicability.Some basic scientometric indicators are considered, it is shown that they can be considered as formalized answers to examination questions. The dependence of scientometric indicators on the scale of the audience to which certain publications are published is shown. Possible changes in the scientometric indicators of Russian publications are predicted in conditions of limited access of Russian publications to world information systems.
论科研成果的专家评价
在评估科学和技术领域的效力时,审议了利用专门知识的一般办法。考试参与者的角色——决策者、考试组织者、专家和其他对考试结果感兴趣的参与者都被考虑在内。分析了对专家的一般要求,如资格、客观性、专家的独立性、考试参与者可能存在的利益冲突等。对专家组织的理论规定在实际实例中的实施进行了考虑。研究表明,在科学组织的有效性分析中,专家评估可能导致结果不可靠,以及科学计量绩效指标在其适用性范围之外的使用。考虑了一些基本的科学计量指标,表明它们可以被视为考试问题的形式化答案。显示了科学计量指标对某些出版物的读者规模的依赖性。在俄罗斯出版物进入世界信息系统的机会有限的情况下,预测俄罗斯出版物的科学计量指标可能发生变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信