||
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?...
Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )
GMT+8, 2024-9-24 15:46
Powered by ScienceNet.cn
Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社