期刊文献+

跨学科同行评议的合理性研究 被引量:12

Research on rationality of interdisciplinary peer-review
原文传递
导出
摘要 跨学科评议的评审专家专业背景各异,在评审非本专业的成果时很难准确和全面。本文探讨了跨学科同行评议的合理性问题,并在此基础上提出需要建立不同学科之间合理的对话机制,保持学术研究的规范性和创新性之间必要的张力,为科学探索特别是跨学科研究创造足够的发展空间。 Because of the various disciplinary backgrounds of the assessment panel in interdisciplinary peer review, it is quite difficult for them to provide accurate and comprehensive evaluation on the research results from other disciplines. This paper explores the issue of rationality in interdisciplinary peer review. On this basis, it proposes that reasonable dialogue mechanism should be established among different disciplines, and for the sake of the enough development space for the scientific explorations, especially the interdisciplinary researches, we should keep the essential tension between normalization and innovation in academic research.
出处 《科学学研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2013年第12期1792-1795,共4页 Studies in Science of Science
关键词 跨学科 同行评议 合理性 interdiscipline peer - review rationality
  • 相关文献

参考文献9

  • 1Metzger N. Zare R N. Science policy: interdisciplinary research: from belief to reality [ J]. Science, 1999, ( 283 ) :642 - 643.
  • 2达利尔·楚宾,爱德华·哈克特.难有同行的科学:同行评议与美国科学政策[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2011.
  • 3Porter A, Rossini F. Peer review of interdisciplinary re- search proposals [ J ]. Science, Technology & Human Values, 1985,(10) :33 -38.
  • 4Wissoker K. Negotiating, A Passage Between Discipline - eary Borders [ M ]. The Chronicle for Higher Educa- tion, 2000,46 ,B4.
  • 5Graybill J K, Shandas V. Doctoral student and early ac- ademic career perspectives[ J]. in Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2010. 404-418.
  • 6Michele Lamont, et al. Beyond blind faith: overcoming the obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation [ J ]. Re- search Evaluation, 2006,15 ( 1 ) :43 - 55.
  • 7Butler L, McAllister I. Metrics or peer review? evaluating the 2001 UK Research assessment exercise in political sci- ence [ J ]. Political Studies Review, 2007, (7) : 3 - 17.
  • 8Pendlebury D A. The use and misuse of journal metrices and other citation indicators [ J ]. Sciento - metrics, 2009, 57(1) :1-11.
  • 9Kuhn T. The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Sci- entific Tradition and Change[ M ]. Chicago: Chicago U- niversity Press, 1977.

同被引文献182

引证文献12

二级引证文献101

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部