走向文献计量学的道德化?对凯尔·西尔的回应

IF 4.1 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Quantitative Science Studies Pub Date : 2022-04-01 DOI:10.1162/qss_c_00178

Y. Gingras

{"title":"走向文献计量学的道德化?对凯尔·西尔的回应","authors":"Y. Gingras","doi":"10.1162/qss_c_00178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In a recent letter to QSS, Kyle Siler (2021), made harsh comments against the decision of the editors to publish a controversial paper signed by Alessandro Strumia (2021) about gender differences in high-energy physics. My aim here is to point to the elements in Siler’s letter that are typical of a new tendency to replace rational and technical arguments with a series of moral statements and ex cathedra affirmations that are not supported by cogent arguments. Such an approach can only be detrimental to rational debates within the bibliometric research community.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"315-318"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards a moralization of bibliometrics? A response to Kyle Siler\",\"authors\":\"Y. Gingras\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/qss_c_00178\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In a recent letter to QSS, Kyle Siler (2021), made harsh comments against the decision of the editors to publish a controversial paper signed by Alessandro Strumia (2021) about gender differences in high-energy physics. My aim here is to point to the elements in Siler’s letter that are typical of a new tendency to replace rational and technical arguments with a series of moral statements and ex cathedra affirmations that are not supported by cogent arguments. Such an approach can only be detrimental to rational debates within the bibliometric research community.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quantitative Science Studies\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"315-318\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quantitative Science Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_c_00178\",\"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_00178","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: 1

摘要

在最近给QSS的一封信中，Kyle Siler(2021)对编辑决定发表由Alessandro Strumia(2021)签署的关于高能物理性别差异的有争议的论文提出了严厉的评论。在这里，我的目的是指出西尔的信中的一些元素，它们是一种新趋势的典型特征，即用一系列没有令人信服的论点支持的道德陈述和无条件的肯定来取代理性和技术论点。这种方法只会对文献计量学研究界的理性辩论有害。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Towards a moralization of bibliometrics? A response to Kyle Siler

Abstract In a recent letter to QSS, Kyle Siler (2021), made harsh comments against the decision of the editors to publish a controversial paper signed by Alessandro Strumia (2021) about gender differences in high-energy physics. My aim here is to point to the elements in Siler’s letter that are typical of a new tendency to replace rational and technical arguments with a series of moral statements and ex cathedra affirmations that are not supported by cogent arguments. Such an approach can only be detrimental to rational debates within the bibliometric research community.

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 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-

CiteScore

12.10

自引率

12.50%

发文量

审稿时长

22 weeks

期刊介绍：