评价文献计量学评论:同行评议和批判性阅读的实用指南。

IF 3 4区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Anh-Duc Hoang
{"title":"评价文献计量学评论:同行评议和批判性阅读的实用指南。","authors":"Anh-Duc Hoang","doi":"10.1177/0193841X251336839","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Along with discussing bibliometric analyses' limitations and potential biases, this paper addresses the growing need for comprehensive guidelines in evaluating bibliometric research by providing systematic frameworks for both peer reviewers and readers. While numerous publications provide guidance on implementing bibliometric methods, there is a notable lack of frameworks for assessing such research, particularly regarding performance analysis and science mapping. Drawing from an extensive review of bibliometric practices and methodological literature, this paper develops structured evaluation frameworks that address the complexity of modern bibliometric analysis, introducing the VALOR framework (Verification, Alignment, Logging, Overview, Reproducibility) for assessing multi-source bibliometric studies. The paper's key contributions include comprehensive guidelines for evaluating data selection, cleaning, and analysis processes; specific criteria for assessing conceptual, intellectual, and social structure analyses; and practical guidance for integrating performance analysis with science mapping results. By providing structured frameworks for reviewers and practical guidelines for readers to interpret and apply bibliometric insights, this work enhances the rigor of bibliometric research evaluation while supporting more effective peer review processes and research planning. The paper also discusses potential areas for further development, including the integration of qualitative analysis with bibliometric data and the advancement of field-normalized metrics, ultimately aiming to support authors, reviewers, and readers in navigating the complexities of bibliometrics and enhancing the meaningfulness of bibliometric research.</p>","PeriodicalId":47533,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Review","volume":" ","pages":"193841X251336839"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Bibliometrics Reviews: A Practical Guide for Peer Review and Critical Reading.\",\"authors\":\"Anh-Duc Hoang\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0193841X251336839\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Along with discussing bibliometric analyses' limitations and potential biases, this paper addresses the growing need for comprehensive guidelines in evaluating bibliometric research by providing systematic frameworks for both peer reviewers and readers. While numerous publications provide guidance on implementing bibliometric methods, there is a notable lack of frameworks for assessing such research, particularly regarding performance analysis and science mapping. Drawing from an extensive review of bibliometric practices and methodological literature, this paper develops structured evaluation frameworks that address the complexity of modern bibliometric analysis, introducing the VALOR framework (Verification, Alignment, Logging, Overview, Reproducibility) for assessing multi-source bibliometric studies. The paper's key contributions include comprehensive guidelines for evaluating data selection, cleaning, and analysis processes; specific criteria for assessing conceptual, intellectual, and social structure analyses; and practical guidance for integrating performance analysis with science mapping results. By providing structured frameworks for reviewers and practical guidelines for readers to interpret and apply bibliometric insights, this work enhances the rigor of bibliometric research evaluation while supporting more effective peer review processes and research planning. The paper also discusses potential areas for further development, including the integration of qualitative analysis with bibliometric data and the advancement of field-normalized metrics, ultimately aiming to support authors, reviewers, and readers in navigating the complexities of bibliometrics and enhancing the meaningfulness of bibliometric research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47533,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"193841X251336839\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X251336839\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X251336839","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

除了讨论文献计量学分析的局限性和潜在的偏差外,本文还通过为同行审稿人和读者提供系统框架,解决了对评估文献计量学研究的综合指南的日益增长的需求。虽然许多出版物提供了实施文献计量学方法的指导,但明显缺乏评估这类研究的框架,特别是在绩效分析和科学制图方面。通过对文献计量学实践和方法学文献的广泛回顾,本文开发了结构化的评估框架,解决了现代文献计量学分析的复杂性,介绍了用于评估多源文献计量学研究的VALOR框架(验证、校准、记录、概述、可重复性)。该论文的主要贡献包括评估数据选择、清理和分析过程的综合指南;评估概念、智力和社会结构分析的具体标准;以及将性能分析与科学制图结果相结合的实用指南。通过为审稿人提供结构化框架和为读者提供解释和应用文献计量学见解的实用指南,本工作增强了文献计量学研究评估的严谨性,同时支持更有效的同行评审过程和研究计划。本文还讨论了进一步发展的潜在领域,包括定性分析与文献计量学数据的整合和领域标准化度量的进步,最终旨在帮助作者、审稿人和读者驾驭文献计量学的复杂性,增强文献计量学研究的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Bibliometrics Reviews: A Practical Guide for Peer Review and Critical Reading.

Along with discussing bibliometric analyses' limitations and potential biases, this paper addresses the growing need for comprehensive guidelines in evaluating bibliometric research by providing systematic frameworks for both peer reviewers and readers. While numerous publications provide guidance on implementing bibliometric methods, there is a notable lack of frameworks for assessing such research, particularly regarding performance analysis and science mapping. Drawing from an extensive review of bibliometric practices and methodological literature, this paper develops structured evaluation frameworks that address the complexity of modern bibliometric analysis, introducing the VALOR framework (Verification, Alignment, Logging, Overview, Reproducibility) for assessing multi-source bibliometric studies. The paper's key contributions include comprehensive guidelines for evaluating data selection, cleaning, and analysis processes; specific criteria for assessing conceptual, intellectual, and social structure analyses; and practical guidance for integrating performance analysis with science mapping results. By providing structured frameworks for reviewers and practical guidelines for readers to interpret and apply bibliometric insights, this work enhances the rigor of bibliometric research evaluation while supporting more effective peer review processes and research planning. The paper also discusses potential areas for further development, including the integration of qualitative analysis with bibliometric data and the advancement of field-normalized metrics, ultimately aiming to support authors, reviewers, and readers in navigating the complexities of bibliometrics and enhancing the meaningfulness of bibliometric research.

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
Evaluation Review
Evaluation Review SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Evaluation Review is the forum for researchers, planners, and policy makers engaged in the development, implementation, and utilization of studies aimed at the betterment of the human condition. The Editors invite submission of papers reporting the findings of evaluation studies in such fields as child development, health, education, income security, manpower, mental health, criminal justice, and the physical and social environments. In addition, Evaluation Review will contain articles on methodological developments, discussions of the state of the art, and commentaries on issues related to the application of research results. Special features will include periodic review essays, "research briefs", and "craft reports".
×
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