{"title":"科学评估——事实上,事实上","authors":"Andrea Mubi Brighenti","doi":"10.1177/05390184211021205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this short commentary, I discuss Olof Hallonsten’s argument against science evaluation. My invitation is to place the discussion in a wider frame that takes into account the many challenges scientists and scientific institutions face today. I argue in favor of a ‘start from the middle’ approach that gives emphasis to the inner principle of valorization of the scientific endeavor.","PeriodicalId":47697,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales","volume":"60 1","pages":"324 - 328"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/05390184211021205","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Science evaluation – As it is, as it could be\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Mubi Brighenti\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/05390184211021205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this short commentary, I discuss Olof Hallonsten’s argument against science evaluation. My invitation is to place the discussion in a wider frame that takes into account the many challenges scientists and scientific institutions face today. I argue in favor of a ‘start from the middle’ approach that gives emphasis to the inner principle of valorization of the scientific endeavor.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47697,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"324 - 328\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/05390184211021205\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184211021205\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184211021205","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
In this short commentary, I discuss Olof Hallonsten’s argument against science evaluation. My invitation is to place the discussion in a wider frame that takes into account the many challenges scientists and scientific institutions face today. I argue in favor of a ‘start from the middle’ approach that gives emphasis to the inner principle of valorization of the scientific endeavor.
期刊介绍:
Social Science Information is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes the highest quality original research in the social sciences at large with special focus on theoretical debates, methodology and comparative and (particularly) cross-cultural research.