|
|
|
| Representative Works in Science and Technology Evaluation: Concept, Connotation, and Characteristics |
| Zhang Zhen1,2, Xu Xiaoting1,2, Cheng Ying1,2 |
1.Laboratory of Data Intelligence and Interdisciplinary Innovation, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023
2.School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract A representative work system is an important aspect of the science and technology evaluation reform in China’s new era. Existing research lacks a comprehensive, clear, and scientific understanding of representative works. Data were collected from multiple sources, including semi-structured interview texts, domestic and foreign documents, and online posts. Grounded theory was employed to distill the characteristics of representative works (basic quality, academic value, relevance, compliance, impact, and academic competitiveness), and construct a conceptual model of the relationships among these characteristics, further refining the definitions of representative works. Specifically, representative works are defined as research outcomes that meet basic quality and compliance requirements; possess academic value, impact, and relevance; and demonstrate the academic competitiveness of researchers. The study indicates that researchers establish impact through basic quality, academic value, relevance, and compliance of their outcomes, demonstrating their academic competitiveness through these characteristics. This research deepens the understanding of representative works and has important theoretical and practical implications for researchers, peer reviewers, and research management institutions that implement representative work systems.
|
|
Received: 02 September 2024
|
|
|
|
1 仲伟民. 关于人文社会科学学术评价的几个问题——从学术评价的实质性标准谈起[J]. 学术界, 2014(7): 41-52, 308.
2 叶继元. 有益遏制学术评价形式化数量化[N]. 中国教育报, 2012-03-28(3).
3 姜春林, 魏庆肖. 人文社会科学代表性论文评价指标体系建构及其实现机制[J]. 甘肃社会科学, 2017(2): 97-106.
4 田贤鹏. 高校教师学术代表作制评价实施: 动因、挑战与路径[J]. 中国高教研究, 2020(2): 85-91.
5 袁广林. 后学术GDP时代我国高校科技评价范式的转变[J]. 国家教育行政学院学报, 2020(11): 34-41.
6 Niu Q K, Zhou J L, Zeng A, et al. Which publication is your representative work?[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2016, 10(3): 842-853.
7 Zhou J L, Zeng A, Fan Y, et al. The representative works of scientists[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 117(3): 1721-1732.
8 Alberts B. Election to the national academy of sciences: pathways to membership[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005, 102(21): 7405-7406.
9 Ioannidis J P A, Boyack K W, Small H, et al. Bibliometrics: is your most cited work your best?[J]. Nature, 2014, 514(7524): 561-562.
10 Atiquzzaman M. Editorial: 2015 best paper awards[J]. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 2016, 65: A1-A3.
11 Block J. A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 1995, 117(2): 187-215.
12 苏鹏, 张琳. 学术代表作时间周期、首发载体及题材类型特征研究——以图灵奖为例[J]. 图书情报知识, 2021, 38(1): 66-75.
13 俞立平, 张矿伟, 蒋长兵. 推进代表作评价存在的问题与对策研究[J]. 情报学报, 2021, 40(4): 345-353.
14 周志成. 高校学术评价制度改革困境及学术效用动态均衡模型演绎[J]. 复旦教育论坛, 2019, 17(3): 38-45, 59.
15 Wittgenstein L. Philosophical investigations[M]. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons, 2009: 25.
16 Baz A. Ordinary language philosophy[M]// Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016: 112-129.
17 Ryan S P. Reconsidering ordinary language philosophy: Malcolm’s (Moore’s) ordinary language argument[J]. Essays in Philosophy, 2010, 11(2): 123-149.
18 Schlagwein D, Schoder D, Spindeldreher K. Consolidated, systemic conceptualization, and definition of the “sharing economy”[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2020, 71(7): 817-838.
19 Moir L. What do we mean by corporate social responsibility?[J]. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 2001, 1(2): 16-22.
20 Schroeder R G, Linderman K, Liedtke C, et al. Six sigma: definition and underlying theory[J]. Journal of Operations Management, 2008, 26(4): 536-554.
21 van Quaquebeke N, Eckloff T. Defining respectful leadership: what it is, how it can be measured, and another glimpse at what it is related to[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2010, 91(3): 343-358.
22 Brühne A I, Schanz D. Defining and managing corporate tax risk: perceptions of tax risk experts[J]. Contemporary Accounting Research, 2022, 39(4): 2861-2902.
23 陆红如, 阮选敏, 成颖, 等. 复杂性理论视角的学术评价理论建构——基于扎根理论的探索性研究[J]. 情报学报, 2020, 39(7): 731-754.
24 许天才, 冯婷婷, 潘雨亭, 等. 高校图书馆辅助论文代表作复合式评价的调研与分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(14): 49-57.
25 Dutta S, Lanvin B, León L R, et al. Global Innovation Index 2022: what is the future of innovation-driven growth?[R]. Geneva: WIPO, 2022: 18-20.
26 Wu X L, Zhang C Z. Finding high-impact interdisciplinary users based on friend discipline distribution in academic social networking sites[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 119(2): 1017-1035.
27 Jeng W, Desautels S, He D Q, et al. Information exchange on an academic social networking site: a multidiscipline comparison on ResearchGate Q&A[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, 68(3): 638-652.
28 Chen M H, Qi X J. Members’ satisfaction and continuance intention: a socio-technical perspective[J]. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 2015, 115(6): 1132-1150.
29 王建明, 王俊豪. 公众低碳消费模式的影响因素模型与政府管制政策——基于扎根理论的一个探索性研究[J]. 管理世界, 2011, 27(4): 58-68.
30 Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory[M]. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2014: 73-349.
31 张曙光, 王红芳. 代表作评价制度的要素、困境与完善路径——基于社会学新制度主义的视角[J]. 湖南师范大学教育科学学报, 2023, 22(2): 115-122.
32 叶继元. 学术期刊与学术规范[J]. 学术界, 2005(4): 57-68.
33 杨奎松, 谢维扬, 赵世瑜, 等. 遵守学术规范推进学术对话——关于“学术对话与学术规范” 的笔谈[J]. 中国社会科学, 1999(4): 49-71, 205.
34 Prahalad C K, Hamel G. The core competence of the corporation[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1990, 68(3): 275-292.
35 董克, 吴佳纯. 科研论文代表作学术价值的生成机制、表现形式与测度策略研究[J]. 西华大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2024, 43(6): 25-35.
36 魏绪秋, 申力旭. 学术论文创新性研究述评[J]. 图书情报知识, 2022, 39(4): 68-79.
37 刘智强, 严荣笑, 唐双双. 领导创新期望与员工突破性创新投入: 基于悖论理论的研究[J]. 管理世界, 2021, 37(10): 226-241.
38 吕冬晴, 阮选敏, 李江, 等. 跨学科知识融合对D指数的影响[J]. 情报学报, 2022, 41(3): 263-274.
39 尚增健. 渐进式技术创新: 科技型中小企业的成长路径——成长型中小企业成长机理的个案分析[J]. 管理世界, 2002, 18(6): 124-133.
40 Dewar R D, Dutton J E. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: an empirical analysis[J]. Management Science, 1986, 32(11): 1422-1433.
41 Rubin G D, Abramson R G. Creating value through incremental innovation: managing culture, structure, and process[J]. Radiology, 2018, 288(2): 330-340.
42 Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, et al. Atypical combinations and scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6157): 468-472.
43 Trapido D. How novelty in knowledge earns recognition: the role of consistent identities[J]. Research Policy, 2015, 44(8): 1488-1500.
44 Li X, Hao J Y. Construction of an evaluation index system for determining the academic impact of military medical scholars[J]. BMJ Military Health, 2018, 164(3): 164-169.
45 Scoble R, Dickson K, Fisher J, et al. Research impact evaluation, a wider context: findings from a research impact pilot[R]. Uxbridge: Brunel University, 2009.
46 吕小红, 杨开英, 张蕾. 大数据时代精细加工提高科技论文显示度[J]. 编辑学报, 2018, 30(4): 373-375.
47 Sperber D, Wilson D. Relevance: communication and cognition[M]. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 1986: 255-279.
48 Harter S P. Psychological relevance and information science[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1992, 43(9): 602-615.
49 Spink A, Greisdorf H, Bateman J. Examining different regions of relevance: from highly relevant to not relevant[C]// Proceedings of the 61st ASIS Annual Meeting. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 1998: 3-12.
50 Burton V T, Chadwick S A. Investigating the practices of student researchers: patterns of use and criteria for use of Internet and library sources[J]. Computers and Composition, 2000, 17(3): 309-328.
51 Tang R, Solomon P. Use of relevance criteria across stages of document evaluation: on the complementarity of experimental and naturalistic studies[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2001, 52(8): 676-685.
52 Savolainen R, Kari J. User-defined relevance criteria in web searching[J]. Journal of Documentation, 2006, 62(6): 685-707.
53 M?rtensson P, Fors U, Wallin S B, et al. Evaluating research: a multidisciplinary approach to assessing research practice and quality[J]. Research Policy, 2016, 45(3): 593-603.
54 Horbach S P J M, Halffman W. The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 118(1): 339-373.
55 Plavén-Sigray P, Matheson G J, Schiffler B C, et al. The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time[J]. eLife, 2017, 6: e27725.
56 Bornmann L, Nast I, Daniel H D. Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication[J]. Scientometrics, 2008, 77(3): 415-432.
57 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Reproducibility and replicability in science[R]. Washington: National Academies Press, 2019: 1-3.
58 张泽青. 学术期刊发展的新机遇——职称制度改革对学术期刊的影响[J]. 编辑之友, 2017(10): 5-7.
59 曾建勋. 重视学术代表作的识别与遴选[J]. 数字图书馆论坛, 2021(9): 1.
60 邱均平, 张裕晨, 周子番. 新时代我国科研评价体系重构中必须处理好八大关系[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2021, 47(1): 47-60.
61 李广海. 理性的平衡: 高校学术评价制度变革的逻辑及操作指向[J]. 教育研究, 2017, 38(8): 85-90.
62 张积玉. 以量化为基础以代表作为主的综合化学术评价制度构建——基于S大学的经验[J]. 重庆大学学报(社会科学版), 2019, 25(6): 84-96.
63 Peteraf M A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1993, 14(3): 179-191.
64 Campion M A. Article review checklist: a criterion checklist for reviewing research articles in applied psychology[J]. Personnel Psychology, 1993, 46(3): 705-718.
65 Yaffe J. From the editor—on peer review: improving the credibility of social work scholarship[J]. Journal of Social Work Education, 2017, 53(4): 577-579.
66 Gerlach M. Editors must be vigilant to guarantee the quality and credibility of published scientific work[J]. ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders, 2018, 10(4): 245-246.
67 Berenbaum M R. On peer review—then, now, and soon to be?[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023, 120(11): e2302593120.
68 Trial of transparent peer review yields promising results[J]. Nature, 2022, 603(7899): 8.
69 俞立平, 黄梦亭, 金鹏. “破五唯”下代表作评价制度有效性和有限性思考[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2023, 46(8): 28-32, 50.
70 张新安. 中国消费者的顾客价值形成机制: 以手机为对象的实证研究[J]. 管理世界, 2010, 26(1): 107-121, 188.
71 李志军, 尚增健. 亟须纠正学术研究和论文写作中的“数学化”“模型化”等不良倾向[J]. 管理世界, 2020, 36(4): 5-6.
72 Gy?rffy B, Herman P, Szabó I. Research funding: past performance is a stronger predictor of future scientific output than reviewer scores[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2020, 14(3): 101050.
73 宋旭红, 高源. 大学教师代表性成果评价及反思[J]. 复旦教育论坛, 2021, 19(4): 77-84.
74 任全娥. 代表性学术成果评价的图书情报学认知与阐释[J]. 扬州大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2021, 25(4): 119-128.
75 苏金燕. 政策视角下代表作评价制度分析[J]. 扬州大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2021, 25(1): 104-112.
76 钟华, 肖畅, 单连慧, 等. 定量分析支持的医学科研项目代表作评价[J]. 科技管理研究, 2022, 42(8): 82-87.
77 叶继元. 学术图书、学术著作、学术专著概念辨析[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2016, 42(1): 21-29.
78 许纪霖. 回归学术共同体的内在价值尺度[J]. 清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2014, 29(4): 78-82.
79 陈时见, 胡娜. 新时代高等学校教师学术评价的改进[J]. 教育研究, 2020, 41(2): 133-142.
80 Colquitt J A, Zapata-Phelan C P. Trends in theory building and theory testing: a five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2007, 50(6): 1281-1303.
81 朱军文, 刘念才. 高校科研评价定量方法与质量导向的偏离及治理[J]. 教育研究, 2014, 35(8): 52-59.
82 王飞. “慢科研”: 内涵、意义与生成机理[J]. 现代大学教育, 2022, 38(1): 93-103, 112.
83 荆林波, 逯万辉. 新时代我国人文社会科学期刊发展与评价[J]. 管理世界, 2022, 38(5): 131-141.
84 何佳讯, 葛佳烨, 张凡. 中国学者管理学研究的世界贡献: 国际合作、前沿热点与贡献路径——基于世界千种管理学英文期刊论文(2013—2019年)的定量分析[J]. 管理世界, 2021, 37(9): 36-67.
85 杨瑞仙, 高鑫宁, 董克. 我国学术代表作评价研究进展[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(17): 129-140. |
|
|
|
