Diese Datenbank enthält über 40.000 Dokumente zu Themen aus den Bereichen Formalerschließung – Inhaltserschließung – Information Retrieval.
© 2015 W. Gödert, TH Köln, Institut für Informationswissenschaft / Powered by litecat, BIS Oldenburg (Stand: 28. April 2022)
1Costas, R. ; Rijcke, S. de ; Marres, N.: "Heterogeneous couplings" : operationalizing network perspectives to study science-society interactions through social media metrics.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.5, S.595-610.
Abstract: Social media metrics have a genuine networked nature, reflecting the networking characteristics of the social media platform from where they are derived. This networked nature has been relatively less explored in the literature on altmetrics, although new network-level approaches are starting to appear. A general conceptualization of the role of social media networks in science communication, and particularly of social media as a specific type of interface between science and society, is still missing. The aim of this paper is to provide a conceptual framework for appraising interactions between science and society in multiple directions, in what we call heterogeneous couplings. Heterogeneous couplings are conceptualized as the co-occurrence of science and non-science objects, actors, and interactions in online media environments. This conceptualization provides a common framework to study the interactions between science and non-science actors as captured via online and social media platforms. The conceptualization of heterogeneous couplings opens wider opportunities for the development of network applications and analyses of the interactions between societal and scholarly entities in social media environments, paving the way toward more advanced forms of altmetrics, social (media) studies of science, and the conceptualization and operationalization of more advanced science-society studies.
Inhalt: Vgl.: https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24427.
2Hicks, D. ; Wouters, P. ; Waltman, L. ; Rijcke, S. de ; Rafols, I.: ¬The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics : 10 principles to guide research evaluation.
In: Nature. 520(2015), 23.04.2015, S.429-431.
Abstract: Research evaluation has become routine and often relies on metrics. But it is increasingly driven by data and not by expert judgement. As a result, the procedures that were designed to increase the quality of research are now threatening to damage the scientific system. To support researchers and managers, five experts led by Diana Hicks, professor in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, and Paul Wouters, director of CWTS at Leiden University, have proposed ten principles for the measurement of research performance: the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics published as a comment in Nature.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.17351!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/520429a.pdf. http://www.leidenmanifesto.org/uploads/4/1/6/0/41603901/leiden_manifesto_german__leidener_manifest.pdf. Video unter: https://vimeo.com/133683418.
3Rijcke, S. de ; Rushforth, A.: To intervene or not to intervene; is that the question? : on the role of scientometrics in research evaluation.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1954-1958.
Abstract: Recent high-profile statements, criticisms, and boycotts organized against certain quantitative indicators (e.g., the DORA declaration) have brought misuses of performance metrics to the center of attention. A key concern captured in these movements is that the metrics appear to carry authority even where established agents of quality control have explicitly outlined limits to their validity and reliability as measurement tools. This raises a number of challenging questions for those readers of this journal who are implicated in questions of indicator "production" and, by extension, "effects." In this opinion piece we wish to critically engage the question of how producers of indicators can come to terms with their role as (partly) responsible parties in the current age of evaluative bibliometrics. We do so through the illuminating case of the professional scientometrics community.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23382/abstract.