武夷山分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/Wuyishan 中国科学技术发展战略研究院研究员;南京大学信息管理系博导

博文

英文论文评审意见汇总(4)

已有 1718 次阅读 2021-11-7 06:54 |个人分类:科学计量学研究|系统分类:观点评述

英文论文评审意见汇总(4

武夷山

 

20150325

 

The paper describes Lithuanian procedure of using expert evaluation for mitigating the negative effect of previous pure bibliometric evaluations.

 

In most countries, peer review was more common in history than quantitative assessment based on bibliometric data. Here the authors tell a story the other way round---- quantitative assessment first, peer review was introduced later. Therefore it would be an interesting story.

 

The description of peer review process is too simple, too brief. I would like to know many aspects of the process: Only Lithuanian experts were mobilized or some international experts also involved? Did the evaluated scientists provide their journal papers and book chapters only, or also provide other outputs such as monographs and conference proceedings? Were participating experts heavily loaded? How many academic works did they have to review in how many days? Did they review those works in a closed venue, such as in a hotel, or could they do the assessment work at home? How big a difference was there between bibliometric evaluation result and that of expert assessment?...   




https://m.sciencenet.cn/blog-1557-1311267.html

上一篇:中国科学技术信息研究所信息分析研究中心2001年总预算估计
下一篇:日本诺奖得主野依良治倡导“原生科学”

2 张利华 杨正瓴

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (0 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2024-3-29 09:50

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部