Critical Remarks on Irvine and Martin's Methodology for Evaluating Scientific Performance

Fondamentale est-elle Possible? La Recherche, Vol. 12, No. 128 (December 1981), 1406-16. 12. A. Weinberg, 'Criteria for Scientific Choice', Minerva, Vol. 1 (1962), 159-71. 13. W. Westera and C. le Pair, 'Evaluation of a Science Policy Instrument', in W. Callebaut, S. E. Cozzens, B-P. Lecuyer, A. Rip and J. van Bandegem (eds), George Sarton Centennial (Ghent, Belgium: Communication and Cognition, 1984), 488-90. 14. Ben R. Martin and John Irvine, 'Research Evaluation: Why? How?', in Callebaut et al., op. cit. note 13, 241-43. 15. Mulvey, op. cit. note 3. 16. See also the section of the same paper entitled 'Accelerator Outputs Scientific Publications' (EW, 304-08). Here IM identify four possible sources of bias in their data collection techniques used to compare publication counts. On the second of these, the difference in publication practices, IM are particularly convincing (EW, 307). Unfortunately the authors do not estimate the possible bias in this case, and in their conclusion they quietly shelve it, giving an overall estimate of bias which does not take it into account (EW, 308). 17. Irvine and Martin, op. cit. note 11, 1409-10

Engineering ethics · Epistemology · Management science · Sociology · Engineering · Philosophy · Psychology · scientometrics and bibliometrics research

• Basic Research in the East and West

  Open Access•J M Irvine, John Irvine et al.•Social Studies of Science•1985

  Incluir item