Expert Evaluation in the Flow of Information Science

Doris Dekleva Smrekar; Polona Vilar

doi:10.55741/knj.58.1-2.13932

Avtorji

Doris Dekleva Smrekar mag. Doris Dekleva Smrekar Centralna tehniška knjižnica Univerze v Ljubljani, Specializirani informacijski centri za tehniko in naravoslovje, Trg republike 3, 1000 Ljubljana
Polona Vilar izr. prof. dr. Polona Vilar Oddelek za bibliotekarstvo, informacijsko znanost in knjigarstvo, Filozofska fakulteta, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55741/knj.58.1-2.13932

Ključne besede:

informacijska znanost, prenos znanja, informacijski krog, ocenjevanje raziskovalnega dela, ekspertno ocenjevanje

Povzetek

Izvleček

Informacijska znanost se ukvarja s proučevanjem vseh vidikov informacij od nastanka do uporabe ter z načrtovanjem procesov in storitev za učinkovit pretok informacij. Pri tem gre za prenos znanja, kar je ključno epistemološko vprašanje informacijske znanosti. V sodobnem času je to zelo pomembna tema, saj sodobna profesionalna družba temelji na ekspertnem znanju, katerega osnova je znanstveno raziskovanje. Krog znanstvenega informiranja je sklenjen, ko so povezane vse faze informacijskega pretoka. Sklenjen informacijski krog zagotavlja trajnostno znanje, znanstveno nadgradnjo in razvoj znanosti. Tako so tudi vložena sredstva in napori v znanstvenoraziskovalno delo upravičeni. Znanstveno informiranje danes še vedno temelji na objavi znanstvenih prispevkov. Objavljeni rezultati raziskovalnega dela so osnova tudi za ocenjevanje kakovosti raziskovalnega dela. Kakovost in odzivnost znanstvenega raziskovanja se danes vrednotita z bibliometrijskimi metodami ter na osnovi ekspertnega ocenjevanja. Ekspertno ocenjevanje ima odločilen vpliv na več ravni raziskovalne in publicistične znanstvene dejavnosti. Pri tem je pomembno doseči čim večjo objektivnost – nepristranskost ekspertnega ocenjevanja. V prispevku so predstavljena izhodišča raziskovanja sistemov ekspertnega ocenjevanja in pregledrelevantnih del na tem področju.

Prenosi

Podatki o prenosih še niso na voljo.

Literatura

Abramo, G., in D’Angelo, C. A. (2011). Evaluating research: From informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 87 (3), 499–514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0352-7

Bence, V. in Oppenheim, C. (2004). The Influence of Peer Review on the Research Assessment Exercise. Journal of Information Science, 30 (4), 347–368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551504045854

Biagioli, M. (2002). From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review. Emergences: Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures, 12 (1), 11–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1045722022000003435

Bollen, J., Crandall, D., Junk, D., Ding, Y. in Borner, K. (2014). From funding agencies to scientific agency. EMBO reports, 15 (2), 131–133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/embr.201338068

Bornmann, L. in Daniel, H. D. (2005), Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees’ decisions, Scientometrics, 63 (2) : 297–320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0214-2

Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific Peer Review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45 (1), 197–245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112

Cechlarova, K., Fleiner, T. in Potpinkova, E. (2014). Assigning evaluators to research grant applications: the case of Slovak Research and Development Agency. Scientometrics, 99 (2), 495–506. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1187-1

Chubin, D. E. in Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. New York, USA: State University of New York Press.

Cole, S., Rubin, L. in Cole, J. R. (1978), Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase One of a Study. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Cole, S., Cole J. R. in Simon, G. A. (1981). Chance and Consensus in Peer Review. Science, 214 (4523), 881–886. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7302566

Demicheli, V. in Di Pietrantonj, C. (2007). Peer Review for Improving the Quality of Grant Applications. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2), art. no. MR000003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000003.pub2

Fedderke, J. W. (2013). The objectivity of national research foundation peer review in South Africa assessed against bibliometric indexes. Scientometrics, 97 (2), 177–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0981-0

Frankel, M. S. in Cave, J. (1997). Evaluating Science and Scientists: An East-West Dialogue on Research Evaluation in Post-Communist Europe. Budapest: Central European University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9789633865668

Geisler, E. (2000). The metrics of science and technology. Westport, Connecticut, London: Quorum Books.

Hartmann, I. in Neidhardt, F. (1990), Peer review at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Scientometrics, 19 (5) : 419–425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02020704

Hjorland, B. (1998). Theory and Metatheory of Information Science: A New Interpretation. Journal of Documentation, 54 (5), 606–621. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007183

Jayasinghe, U. W., Marsch, H. W. in Bond, N. (2006). A new reader trial approach to peer review in funding research grants: An Australian experiment. Scientometrics, 69 (3), 591–606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0171-4

Južnič, P. (2005). Bibliometrijske metode. V Šauperl, A. (Ur.), Raziskovalne metode v bibliotekarstvu, informacijski znanosti in knjigarstvu. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.

Južnič, P., Pečlin, S., Žaucer, M., Mandelj, T., Pušnik, M. in Demšar, F. (2010). Scientometric Indicators: Peer-review, Bibliometric Methods and Conflict of Interests. Scientometrics, 85 (2), 429–441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0230-8

Kališnik, M., Fister, P., Lah, L. in Dekleva Smrekar, D. (2003). Uvod v znanstvenoraziskovalno metodologijo na področju arhitekture in urbanizma. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za arhitekturo.

Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G. in Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in Peer Review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64 (1), 2–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784

Ma, Z., Pan, Y., Yu, Z., Wang, J., Jia, J. in Wu, Y. (2013). A quantitative study on the effectiveness of peer review for academic journals. Scientometrics, 95(1), 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0879-2

Mali, F. (2002). Razvoj moderne znanosti, socialni mehanizmi. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. Pridobljeno 9. 5. 2013 s spletne strani: http://www.fdv.uni-lj.si/zalozba/edostop.asp

Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe, U. W. in Bond, N. W. (2008). Improving the peer-review process for grant applications. American Psychologist, 63(3), 160–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160

Organisational Evaluation of the Slovenian Research Agency (SRA): Evaluation Report [2011]. Strasbourg: ESF (European Science Foundation). Pridobljeno 24. 4. 2014 s spletne strani: http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/SRA_evaluation.pdf

Paolucci, M. in Grimaldo, F. (2014). Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism. Scientometrics, 99(3), 663–688. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1239-1

Peer Review Guidelines. Virginia, USA: The National Science Foundation. Pridobljeno 6. 8. 2013 s spletne strani: http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/peer_review.jsp

Peer Review Reforms Needed to Ensure Fairness in Federal Agency Grant Selection. Washington, DC: GAO (General Accounting Office). [Poročilo 1994] Pridobljeno 24. 4. 2014 s spletne strani: http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat2/152200.pdf

Pickard, A. J. (2007). Research methods in information. London: Facet.

Reinhart, M. (2009). Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine. Reliability, fairness, and validity. Scientometrics, 81(3), 789–809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2220-7

Rubin, R. (2004). Foundations of library and information science. New York, London: Neal-Schuman.

Sandstrom, U. in Hallsten, M. (2008). Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics, 74(2), 175–189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3

Smith, R. (2006). Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178

Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in biotechnology, 20(8), 357–358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6

Thurner, S. in Hanel, R. (2011). Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average. European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter 84(4), 707–711. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2011-20545-7

Towne, L., Fletcher, J. M. in Wise, L. L. (2004). Strengthening Peer Review in Federal Agencies that Support Education Research. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.

Vickery, B. C. in Vickery, A. (2004). Information Science in Theory and Practice. München: K. D. Saur. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783598440083

Werner, B. M. in Souder, W. E. (1997). Measuring R&D performance – state of the art. Research Technology Management, 40 (2), 34–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.1997.11671115

Wessely, S. (1998). Peer Review of Grant Applications: What Do We Know? Lancet, 352 (9124), 301–305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11129-1

Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science : What It Is and What It Means. Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541391