Open AccessCould we measure science outcome in papers and printed symbols? (Commenting on Tatyana Zakharchuk’s article)
Author(s) -
Eduard Sukiasyan
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
naučnye i tehničeskie biblioteki
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2686-8601
pISSN - 1027-3689
DOI - 10.33186/1027-3689-2017-8-28-32
Subject(s) - publication , science citation index , citation , outcome (game theory) , index (typography) , work (physics) , measure (data warehouse) , computer science , data science , library science , engineering ethics , political science , engineering , law , mathematics , world wide web , data mining , mathematical economics , mechanical engineering
The author analyzes why science outcomes in the library and information sector is assessed through quantitative factors (number of publications and their total volume) rather than by the actual contribution to the science; why in some cases it is enough for some publications to be published and, which is most importantly, be included into the Russian Science Citation Index though they are far from being scientific. The author argues that we lack assessment tools to evaluate achievements in science, and it’s almost impossible to publish a paper in foreign periodicals; the criteria to classify a work as a scientific or research paper are lacking, too.