映射狭窄的再现性话语

Sven Ulpts, J. Schneider
{"title":"映射狭窄的再现性话语","authors":"Sven Ulpts, J. Schneider","doi":"10.55835/6442f12449e01ad5eb48d798","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We constructed citation maps of eight canonical articles in the reproducibility discourse of the reform movement in science to explore how this discourse travels through the research landscape. The map indicates that this discourse largely remains within the confines of the biomedical and social sciences where they originated. This suggests that research policies and assessment guidelines that are based on this discourse might be inappropriate or inapplicable for other disciplines making any universal guidelines and policies problematic and carrying with it the danger of epistemic injustice. Therefore, we recommend further investigations into whether and how reproducibility is talked about locally within different and diverse fields across the research landscape.","PeriodicalId":334841,"journal":{"name":"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mapping the Narrow Reproducibility Discourse\",\"authors\":\"Sven Ulpts, J. Schneider\",\"doi\":\"10.55835/6442f12449e01ad5eb48d798\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We constructed citation maps of eight canonical articles in the reproducibility discourse of the reform movement in science to explore how this discourse travels through the research landscape. The map indicates that this discourse largely remains within the confines of the biomedical and social sciences where they originated. This suggests that research policies and assessment guidelines that are based on this discourse might be inappropriate or inapplicable for other disciplines making any universal guidelines and policies problematic and carrying with it the danger of epistemic injustice. Therefore, we recommend further investigations into whether and how reproducibility is talked about locally within different and diverse fields across the research landscape.\",\"PeriodicalId\":334841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55835/6442f12449e01ad5eb48d798\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55835/6442f12449e01ad5eb48d798","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们在科学改革运动的可再现性话语中构建了八篇经典文章的引文图,以探索这一话语如何在研究领域中传播。这张地图表明,这种论述在很大程度上仍停留在它们起源的生物医学和社会科学的范围内。这表明,基于这一论述的研究政策和评估指南可能不合适或不适用于其他学科,这使得任何普遍的指导方针和政策都存在问题,并伴随着认识不公正的危险。因此,我们建议进一步调查是否以及如何在不同的研究领域讨论可重复性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mapping the Narrow Reproducibility Discourse
We constructed citation maps of eight canonical articles in the reproducibility discourse of the reform movement in science to explore how this discourse travels through the research landscape. The map indicates that this discourse largely remains within the confines of the biomedical and social sciences where they originated. This suggests that research policies and assessment guidelines that are based on this discourse might be inappropriate or inapplicable for other disciplines making any universal guidelines and policies problematic and carrying with it the danger of epistemic injustice. Therefore, we recommend further investigations into whether and how reproducibility is talked about locally within different and diverse fields across the research landscape.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信