论文部分内容阅读
引文分析在学术评价中广泛使用,但是引文评价的合法性问题在学术界一直广受争议,向来不乏学者对以引文分析为基础的量化学术评价提出异议或批评。争议源自于学术界对引用行为和引文本质没有形成普遍性的认识论共识。在科学社会学的理论体系中,以默顿和普赖斯为首的一派提出了引文认可论假说,其反对派提出了引文说服论假说,两派为引用行为和引文本质提供了两种相互对立的理论解释体系。长期以来,研究者主要从引文功能和引用动机两条途径开展实证研究,寻求支持不同理论假说的经验证据。从现有的实证结果来看,引用关系是基于文献之间的相关关系建立的,并不能直接证明引用关系完全体现知识增长的累积性;因此,学术评价应该谨慎地使用引文数据,而且引文评价不能取代同行评议在学术评价体系中的主体地位。
Citation analysis is widely used in academic evaluation. However, the legitimacy of citation evaluation has been widely debated in academia. There are still many scholars who disagree or criticize the quantitative academic evaluation based on citation analysis. The controversy stems from the fact that there is no universally agreed epistemological consensus on the nature of citing and quoting in academia. In the theoretical system of sociology of science, the faction headed by Merton and Price put forward the hypothesis of citation recognition. The opposition proposed the hypothesis of citation persuasion. The two factions provide two kinds of clues for citing and quoting essence Theoretical interpretation system. For a long time, researchers have conducted empirical research mainly from two sources: citation function and citation motivation, seeking empirical evidence to support different theoretical hypotheses. From the existing empirical results, the citation relationship is based on the correlation between documents and can not directly prove that the citation relationship fully reflects the cumulative growth of knowledge; therefore, academic evaluation should be cautious in using citation data, and citation evaluation Can not replace the peer review in the academic evaluation system of the dominant position.