黄晓磊(Huang Xiaolei )分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/book Nature is teacher | 诚实点,简单点,专业点 | 微博:weibo.com/naturethinker

博文

《科学》社论和《旧金山宣言》:停止使用影响因子评价科学家 精选

已有 23728 次阅读 2013-5-17 08:33 |个人分类:科学那些事儿|系统分类:科普集锦|关键词:影响因子 科研评价

早上到办公室,打开邮箱,看到今天Science杂志的社论“Impact Factor Distortions”。主编Bruce在社论中说:包括美国科学促进会(AAAS)在内的75家机构和150多位知名科学家在2012年12月举行的美国细胞生物学学会会议上支持签署了《关于研究评价的旧金山宣言(San Francisco declaration on research Assessment,DORA)》,宣言认为科学界应该停止使用影响因子评价科学家个人的工作;影响因子不能作为替代物用于评估科学家的贡献,以及招聘、晋升和项目资助等的评审。

Science社论提到这样做的理由(虽然很多理由大家早就知道):

1)影响因子是评价期刊的工具,不是评价科学家个人的工具。很多重大突破本来就可能需要长时间的积累。

2)影响因子的不恰当使用非常有破坏性,影响期刊的发表政策(比如选择发表可能高引用的文章),给知名期刊带来沉重的投稿压力(滥投)。

3)最重要的危害可能是妨碍创新。影响因子会鼓励“模仿或跟风”,使得本来就已经很热的领域(刊物影响因子高)更加人满为患。更多人关注的是发高影响因子的文章,而不是科研创新。

 

Science社论认为,为了客观的评价研究者的科研贡献,需要知名科学家作为评价者,认真的评阅某个研究者的代表作。《旧金山宣言》中给出了一些具体的评价建议:

General Recommendation

1.       Do not use journal-based metrics, such as journal impact factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion or funding decisions.

 

For funding agencies

2.  Be explicit about the criteria used in evaluating the scientific productivity of grant applicants and clearly highlight, especially for early-stage investigators, that the scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published.

3.      For the purposes of research assessment, consider the value and impact of all research outputs (including datasets and software) in addition to research publications, and consider a broad range of impact measures including qualitative indicators of research impact, such as influence on policy and practice.

 

For institutions

4.      Be explicit about the criteria used to reach hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions, clearly highlighting, especially for early-stage investigators, that the scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published.

5.      For the purposes of research assessment, consider the value and impact of all research outputs (including datasets and software) in addition to research publications, and consider a broad range of impact measures including qualitative indicators of research impact, such as influence on policy and practice.

 

For publishers

6.      Greatly reduce emphasis on the journal impact factor as a promotional tool, ideally by ceasing to promote the impact factor or by presenting the metric in the context of a variety of journal-based metrics (eg. 5-year impact factor, EigenFactor [6], SCImago [7], editorial and publication times, etc) that provide a richer view of journal performance.

7.      Make available a range of article-level metrics to encourage a shift toward assessment based on the scientific content of an article rather than publication metrics of the journal in which it was published.

8.      Encourage responsible authorship practices and the provision of information about the specific contributions of each author.

9.      Whether a journal is open-access or subscription-based, remove all reuse limitations on reference lists in research articles and make them available under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication. (See reference 8.)

10.  Remove or reduce the constraints on the number of references in research articles, and, where appropriate, mandate the citation of primary literature in favor of reviews in order to give credit to the group(s) who first reported a finding.

 

For organizations that supply metrics

11.  Be open and transparent by providing data and methods used to calculate all metrics.

12.  Provide the data under a licence that allows unrestricted reuse, and provide computational access to data.

13.  Be clear that inappropriate manipulation of metrics will not be tolerated; be explicit about what constitutes inappropriate manipulation and what measures will be taken to combat this.

14.  Account for the variation in article types (e.g., reviews versus research articles), and in different subject areas when metrics are used, aggregated, or compared

 

For researchers

15.  When involved in committees making decisions about funding, hiring, tenure, or promotion, make assessments based on scientific content rather than publication metrics.

16.  Wherever appropriate, cite primary literature in which observations are first reported rather than reviews in order to give credit where credit is due.

17.  Use a range of article metrics and indicators on personal/supporting statements, as evidence of the impact of individual published articles and other research outputs [9].

18.Challenge research assessment practices that rely inappropriately on Journal Impact Factors and promote best practice that focuses on the value and influence of specific research outputs.



论文与评价
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-111883-690753.html
上一篇:西南大学:那些石头
下一篇:看看斯坦福

179 罗德海 张树风 许培扬 王涛 曹聪 张文增 李汝资 李东风 赵凤光 赵美娣 王志平 陈辉 许先进 郑小康 陈万浩 杨正瓴 长龙 郑新奇 胡春松 赵明 孙东科 孟浩 牛丕业 陈学雷 王云才 彭勇 Editage意得辑 李光强 李大斌 翟远征 李学宽 李土荣 崔树勋 吴飞鹏 徐晓 杜立智 王府民 胡瑞祥 吴玲玲 苏光松 黄荣彬 梁建华 涂海波 鲍名凯 张千玉 刘波 吴浩宇 严海燕 吕喆 林松清 梁大成 李子欣 唐凌峰 梁洁 姚凤銮 王国强 牛登科 曹建军 刘淼 袁斌 孙平 李万峰 罗教明 李郎平 王明明 石磊 王正伦 夏伟梁 文克玲 吴昊 孙学军 韩一波 黄继红 周著黄 赵纪军 曹凯 王飞 张丰 胡新根 李冰 胡想顺 龙良鲲 赵斌 蒋永华 闵应骅 谢蜀生 陈绍云 陈一良 薛宇 李粒 万润兰 王斌 黄建华 周彬彬 许浚远 李强子 车相立 尹维 王琛柱 田丰 刘伟 宁利中 喻海良 戴德昌 张木诚 曾泳春 黎在珣 李伟钢 张鑫 徐锋 李天成 吴国胜 任胜利 唐华 傅晓明 曹俊 徐福桥 董明 刘全慧 方晓汾 余昕 王德华 陈钢 吴立志 陈冬生 阎建民 王铮 印大中 杨涛 周春雷 张怀东 邱敦莲 李庆祥 彭星光 徐攀 燕双仟 傅琳琛 马廷灿 zhouguanghui scientist wujiandongde hainanchen songshu123 uneyecat hengy king2022 swqdu zhong0906 cloud020 haozhangyu transfer jerry52101314 thinpig jdye59 laochen76 ychengwei lianghongze xiexmbs UNCblue paulings jzpalsgg cly85 silentyf LansingMI liuerbai Zxt2012 cmhuang slytjiaofei ttee1 myyddd tongb1218 gqfu biofans sunnycloud ly1372153459 lan6603 suronghui dootritiger lionvsjay

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (117 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|科学网 ( 京ICP备14006957 )

GMT+8, 2014-4-21 23:25

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007-2014 中国科学报社