The problem of evaluation of scientific results: fetishization of bibliometrics or common sense

The article analyzes the positive and negative consequences of using bibliometric tools to evaluate the results of scientific activity. The necessity of refusal from the official evaluation of the results of scientific activity of scientists and scientific (educational) organizations on the basis of the criterion of publication activity and relevant indicators is substantiated. It is offered to develop and approve the code of scientific ethics, the problem not only quantitative, but also thorough qualitative (substantial) systematization of scientific knowledge is activated.

Keywords

evaluation criterion, bibliometric approach, publication activity, systematization of scientific knowledge, scientific ethics

Received

20.02.2019

Publication date

22.02.2019

Number of characters

37830

Cite

GOST	Tolstik V. The problem of evaluation of scientific results: fetishization of bibliometrics or common sense // Gosudarstvo i pravo – 2019. – Issue 1 C. 65-74 [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ras.jes.su/gp/s013207690003650-7-1-en (circulation date: 18.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S013207690003650-7
MLA	Tolstik, Vladimir A "The problem of evaluation of scientific results: fetishization of bibliometrics or common sense." Gosudarstvo i pravo 1 (2019):65-74. DOI: 10.31857/S013207690003650-7
APA	Tolstik V. (2019). The problem of evaluation of scientific results: fetishization of bibliometrics or common sense. Gosudarstvo i pravo (1), pp.65-74 DOI: 10.31857/S013207690003650-7

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 3, views: 1505

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Bredikhin S. V., Kuznetsov A. Yu. Metody bibliometrii i rynok ehlektronnoj nauchnoj periodiki. Novosibirsk, M., 2012.

2. Bredikhin S. V., Kuznetsov A. Yu., Scherbakova N. G. Analiz tsitirovaniya v bibliometrii. Novosibirsk, M., 2013.

3. Idei i chisla. Osnovaniya i kriterii otsenki rezul'tativnosti filosofskikh i sotsiogumanitarnykh issledovanij. M., 2016. C. 153, 154.

4. Kodeks nauchnoj ehtiki. URL: http://www.courieredu.ru/cour0601/600.htm

5. Lazarev V. V. Yuridicheskaya nauka: prodolzhenie polemiki // LEX RUSSICA. 2015. № 11. S. 10—24.

6. Leont'ev A. N. Deyatel'nost', soznanie, lichnost'. 2-e izd. M., 1977. S. 210.

7. Nauchnaya ehtika [Ehlektronnyj resurs] – Rezhim dostupa: URL: https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/599886 (data obrascheniya: 20.05.2018).

8. Pipiya L. K. K voprosu ob otsenke rezul'tatov nauchnoj deyatel'nosti [Ehlektronnyj resurs] – Rezhim dostupa: URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/k-voprosu-ob-otsenke-rezultatov-nauchnoydeyatelnosti (data obrascheniya: 20.05.2018).

9. Polyakov S. B. Diagnostika pravosoznaniya pravoprimenitelej: ucheb. posobie. Perm', 2017. S. 5.

10. Psikhologicheskij slovar'. URL: http://psi.webzone.ru/st/054700.htm

11. Sverdlov E. D. Stat'ya mozhet khorosho tsitirovat'sya potomu, chto ona oshibochna. URL: https://indicator.ru/article/2018/02/07/impakt-faktor/

12. Tolstik V. A. Ot plyuralizma pravoponimaniya k bor'be za soderzhanie prava // Gosudarstvo i pravo. 2004. № 9. S. 13—21.

13. Tolstik V. A., Trusov N. A. Bor'ba za soderzhanie prava. N. Novgorod, 2008.

14. Filosofiya, bibliometriya i upravlenie naukoj [Ehlektronnyj resurs] – Rezhim dostupa: URL: https://iphras.ru/uplfile/ideol/bibliometr/Phil_bibl_2.html (data obrascheniya: 20.05.2018).

15. Ehticheskij kodeks [Ehlektronnyj resurs] – Rezhim dostupa: URL: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81