科学改革、引文政治和遗忘的官僚主义

IF 4.1 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Berna Devezer, Bart Penders
{"title":"科学改革、引文政治和遗忘的官僚主义","authors":"Berna Devezer, Bart Penders","doi":"10.1162/qss_c_00274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Current reform movements in science seek to change how researchers do science, the tools and infrastructure they use to so, and how they assess each others’ work in terms of quality and value. Here, we argue that openness and replicability are quickly becoming key indicators for such quality assessments and they sometimes operate through citation strategies that actively pursue (some degree of) oblivion for non-reformed science. We do not oppose a genuine pursuit of transparency and methodological quality, but are concerned by how uncritical and oversimplified interpretations of both are skewing the collective memory of the scholarly community. Peer Review https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_c_00274","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"10 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scientific reform, citation politics and the bureaucracy of oblivion\",\"authors\":\"Berna Devezer, Bart Penders\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/qss_c_00274\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Current reform movements in science seek to change how researchers do science, the tools and infrastructure they use to so, and how they assess each others’ work in terms of quality and value. Here, we argue that openness and replicability are quickly becoming key indicators for such quality assessments and they sometimes operate through citation strategies that actively pursue (some degree of) oblivion for non-reformed science. We do not oppose a genuine pursuit of transparency and methodological quality, but are concerned by how uncritical and oversimplified interpretations of both are skewing the collective memory of the scholarly community. Peer Review https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_c_00274\",\"PeriodicalId\":34021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quantitative Science Studies\",\"volume\":\"10 4\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quantitative Science Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_c_00274\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Science Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_c_00274","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当前的科学改革运动试图改变科学家做科学的方式、他们用来做科学的工具和基础设施,以及他们如何在质量和价值方面评估彼此的工作。在这里,我们认为开放性和可复制性正迅速成为这种质量评估的关键指标,它们有时通过引文策略来运作,这些策略积极追求(某种程度上)遗忘未改革的科学。我们并不反对对透明度和方法论质量的真正追求,但我们担心的是,对这两者的不加批判和过度简化的解释会扭曲学术界的集体记忆。同行评议https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_c_00274
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Scientific reform, citation politics and the bureaucracy of oblivion
Abstract Current reform movements in science seek to change how researchers do science, the tools and infrastructure they use to so, and how they assess each others’ work in terms of quality and value. Here, we argue that openness and replicability are quickly becoming key indicators for such quality assessments and they sometimes operate through citation strategies that actively pursue (some degree of) oblivion for non-reformed science. We do not oppose a genuine pursuit of transparency and methodological quality, but are concerned by how uncritical and oversimplified interpretations of both are skewing the collective memory of the scholarly community. Peer Review https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_c_00274
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
Quantitative Science Studies
Quantitative Science Studies INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
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