| 来源类型 | Article
|
| 规范类型 | 其他
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.021
|
| ISBN | 1751-1577
|
| When social scientists disagree: comments on the Butler-van den Besselaar debate. |
| Martin, Ben R
|
| 发表日期 | 2017-08-01
|
| 出处 | Journal of Informetrics
|
| 出版者 | Elsevier
|
| 出版年 | 2017
|
| 页码 | 937-940
|
| 语种 | 英语
|
| 摘要 | In 2003, Linda Butler found evidence that as a result of “the increased culture of evaluation faced by the [Australian higher education] sector … [in which] significant funds are distributed to universities, and within universities, on the basis of aggregate publication counts, with little attention paid to the impact or quality of that output … journal publication productivity has increased significantly in the last decade [the 1990s], but its impact has declined” (Butler, 2003a, p.143). More recently, however, Peter van den Besselaar, Ulf Heyman and Ulf Sandström (hereafter BHS) have concluded from their bibliometric analysis that “Australia not only improved its share of research output but also increased research quality, implying that total impact was greatly increased”, and hence “Butler’s main conclusions are not correct” (van den Besselaar et al., 2017, p.1 ). How can we explain this disagreement? |
| 特色分类 | H Social Sciences (General)
|
| 关键词 | replication
controversy
social science
|
| URL | http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/80762/
|
| 来源智库 | Science Policy Research Unit (United Kingdom)
|
| 引用统计 |
|
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物
|
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/468935
|
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714 |
Martin, Ben R. When social scientists disagree: comments on the Butler-van den Besselaar debate.. 2017.
|
|
文件名：
|
When Social Scientists Disagree.pdf
|
|
格式：
|
Adobe PDF
|
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
