FAQ

Studia Historiae Scientiarum

Search results

simple search

search np. “cognitive architectures” AND 1993-200 NOT Urban
advanced search
ex. 1234-6789
ex. 10.4467/16890027AP.16.022.6009
ex. Uniwersytet Jagielloński

Counteracting erroneous interpretations of bibliometrics

Editor's Declaration

With reference to the tradition of  reliable ,  integrated  research in the Science of Science (cf. Kokowski  2015a ;  2015b ;  2015c ; Cook  et al.   2009 ; San Francisco Declaration On Research Assessment (DORA)  2012 ; Hicks  et al. 2015 ; Werner  2015 ; Wilsdon  et al.  2015 ; Universities UK  2017 ; Responsible Metrics  2017 ), the Editorial Team fully supports the current criticism of bibliometrics, mistakenly identified with scientometrics by science administrators around the world.


In particular, the Editorial Team fully shares the view of the 74 editors representing 56 leading journals in the history of science, technology and medicine that:

“Great research may be published anywhere and in any language. Truly ground-breaking work may be more likely to appear from marginal, dissident or unexpected sources, rather than from a well-established and entrenched mainstream” (Cook  et al.   2009 , p. 2).


In addition, the Editorial Team advocates the use of the so-called “Responsible metrics” in the assessment of scientific activity and the quality of scientific journals (see Universities UK  2017 ; Responsible Metrics  2017 ).


Therefore, the pages of the journal are open to the reliable analyzes of the bibliometric methods in the light of the science of science and the science studies, particularly with regard to the history of science and the history of the exact sciences - cf. About the journal, The scope of the journal .


Bibliography

  1. American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) (with a large group of editors and publishers of scientific journals) 2012: San Francisco DORA Declaration on Research Assessment. URL:  https://sfdora.org ;  DORA Declaration  (accessed on 8 September 2022).
  2. Cook, Hal  et al.  [total of 74 editors representing 56 leading journals in the history of science, technology and medicine] 2009: Journals under Threat: A Joint Response from History of Science, Technology and Medicine Editors.  Medical History  53(1), pp. 1–4. URL:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2629173/pdf/medhis5301-00a-01.pdf  (accessed on 8 September 2022).
  3. Hicks, Diana; Wouters, Paul; Waltman, Ludo; de Rijcke, Sarah; Rafols, Ismael 2015: Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics.  Nature  520(7548), pp. 429–431 (23 April 2015). URL:  https://www.nature.com/articles/520429a.pdf  (accessed on 8 September 2022).
  4. Ithenticate. Profesional Plagiarism Prevention 2011: White Paper. The Ethics of Self-Plagiarism. Dostęp online:  https://www.ithenticate.com/hs-fs/hub/92785/file-5414624-pdf/media/ith-selfplagiarism-whitepaper.pdf  (accessed on 8 September 2022).
  5. Kokowski, Michał 2015a: Szkic aktualnej debaty nad naukometrią i bibliometrią w Polsce i zapomniane naukoznawstwo [A sketch on the current debate on scientometrics and bibliometrics versus the forgotten science of science].  Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU  XIV (2015), pp. 117–134. DOI:  10.4467/23921749PKHN_PAU.16.007.5263 .
  6. Kokowski, Michał 2015b: Jakiej naukometrii i bibliometrii potrzebujemy w Polsce? [What kind of scientometrics and bibliometrics do we need in Poland?]  Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU  XIV (2015), pp. 135–184. DOI:  10.4467/23921749PKHN_PAU.16.008.5264 .
  7. Kokowski, Michał 2015c: Bibliografia naukometryczno-bibliometryczno-informetryczna (wybór) [Scientometric, bibliometric and informetric bibliography (Selection)].  Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU  XIV (2015), pp. 185–266. DOI:  10.4467/23921749PKHN_PAU.16.009.5265 .
  8. Responsible Metrics 2017: Website promoting ideas of "Responsible Metrics". URL:  https://responsiblemetrics.org  (accessed on 8 September 2022).
  9. Universities UK 2017:  Metrics in REF2021: advice from the UK Forum for Responsible Research Metrics . URL:  https://web.archive.org/web/20190312170201/http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/Pages/forum-for-responsible-research-metrics.aspx  (accessed on 8 September 2022).
  10. Werner, Reinhard 2015: The focus on bibliometrics makes papers less useful.  Nature  517 (7534), p. 245 (15 January 2015). URL:  https://www.nature.com/articles/517245a.pdf  (accessed on 8 September 2022).
  11. Wilsdon, James  et al.  2015:  The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management . DOI:  10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363  (accessed on 8 September 2022).