首页> 外文期刊>Aslib Proceedings >Recognition and reward in the academy Valuing publication oeuvres in biomedicine, economics and history
【24h】

Recognition and reward in the academy Valuing publication oeuvres in biomedicine, economics and history

机译:该学院在生物医学,经济学和历史上对出版物的重视和认可

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Purpose - The publication oeuvre of a researcher carries great value when academic careers are assessed, and being recognised as a successful candidate is usually equated with being a productive author. Yet, how publications are valued in the context of evaluating careers is so far an understudied topic. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - Through a content analysis of assessment reports in three disciplines - biomedicine, economics and history - this paper analyses how externalities are used to evaluate publication oeuvres. Externalities are defined as features such as reviews and bibliometric indicators, which can be assessed without evaluating the epistemological claims made in the actual text. Findings - All three fields emphasise similar aspects when assessing: authorship, publication prestige, temporality of research, reputation within the field and boundary keeping. Yet, how these facets of quality are evaluated, and the means through which they are assessed differs between disciplines. Moreover, research fields orient themselves according to different temporal horizons, i.e. history looks to the past and economics to the future when research is evaluated. Research limitations/implications - The complexities involved in the process of evaluating candidates are also reflected in the findings, and while the comparative approach taken effectively highlights domain specific differences it may also hide counter-narratives, and subtle intradisciplinary discussion on quality. Originality/value - This study offers a novel perspective on how publications are valued when assessing academic careers. Especially striking is how research across different fields is evaluated through different time horizons. This finding is significant in the debate on more overarching and formal systems of research evaluation.
机译:目的-在评估学术职业时,研究人员的出版作品具有巨大的价值,被公认为成功的候选人通常等同于成为富有成果的作家。但是,到目前为止,如何在评估职业的背景下评估出版物的价值仍是一个未被充分研究的话题。本文旨在讨论这些问题。设计/方法/方法-通过对生物医学,经济学和历史这三个学科的评估报告进行内容分析,本文分析了如何使用外部性评估出版物。外部性定义为诸如评论和文献计量指标之类的功能,无需评估实际文本中的认识论主张就可以对其进行评估。调查结果-评估时,所有三个领域都强调相似的方面:作者,出版物声望,研究的时效性,领域内的声誉和边界保护。但是,这些质量方面的评估方法以及评估这些方面的方法因学科而异。而且,研究领域根据不同的时间范围来定位自己,即,在评估研究时,历史回顾过去,经济学回顾未来。研究的局限性/含意-评估候选人的过程中所涉及的复杂性也反映在调查结果中,尽管采用的比较方法有效地突显了特定领域的差异,但也可能掩盖了反叙事,以及关于质量的细微学科内讨论。原创性/价值-这项研究为评估学术职业时出版物的价值提供了新颖的视角。尤其引人注目的是如何在不同的时间范围内评估不同领域的研究。这一发现在关于研究评估的总体和正式系统的辩论中具有重要意义。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号