IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v63y2005i1d10.1007_s11192-005-0206-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementing relevant disciplinary evaluations in the social sciences

Author

Listed:
  • Philippe Jeannin

    (Université Toulouse III, LEREPS-GRESS & IUT de Tarbes)

  • Joëlle Devillard

    (Université Toulouse III, LERASS-MICS)

Abstract

Summary This paper addresses the issue of relevancy when tackling the problem of the evaluation of research published in Social Science journals. This evaluation initialy relies on a critical selection of the databases scientists use. To implement relevant disciplinary evaluations, the method also needs to be scientific, ethical, replicable, comprehensive, flexible, transparent, accessible, incentive, productive, updatable and “internationalizable”. This qualitative approach takes into account the current global environment of research. Our method - introducing these criteria - consists in selecting the bases (either bases from the Institute for Scientific Information or not) scientists favour, in crossing them to elaborate new lists of journals, in testing them, in launching a life-size survey among scientists. This method stands as a prerequisite for further applications. Beyond this rather constructivist approach, such evaluations of research can benefit to all the actors participating in the process of the dissemination of knowledge. The need for an international cooperation in coming up with relevant evaluation criteria and indexes is put forward when implementing these sets of evaluation. The appendix presents a case study on French sociology.

Suggested Citation

  • Philippe Jeannin & Joëlle Devillard, 2005. "Implementing relevant disciplinary evaluations in the social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(1), pages 121-144, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:63:y:2005:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-005-0206-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-005-0206-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-005-0206-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-005-0206-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Resnick & Christopher Avery & Richard Zeckhauser, 1999. "The Market for Evaluations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 564-584, June.
    2. Papon, Pierre, 1998. "Research institutions in France: between the Republic of science and the nation-state in crisis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 771-780, December.
    3. Bruno Frey, 2002. "Why economists disregard economic methodology," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 41-47.
    4. Wilts, Arnold, 2000. "Forms of research organisation and their responsiveness to external goal setting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 767-781, June.
    5. Mustar, Philippe & Laredo, Philippe, 2002. "Innovation and research policy in France (1980-2000) or the disappearance of the Colbertist state," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 55-72, January.
    6. Diana Hicks, 1999. "The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 44(2), pages 193-215, February.
    7. T N van Leeuwen & L J van der Wurff & A F J van Raan, 2001. "The use of combined bibliometric methods in research funding policy," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 195-201, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philippe Jeannin, 2004. "Les économistes et leurs revues," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 114(3), pages 275-288.
    2. Edgardo Arturo Ayala Gaytán, 2009. "Social network externalities and price dispersion in online markets," Ensayos Revista de Economia, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Facultad de Economia, vol. 0(2), pages 1-28, November.
    3. Gary E. Bolton & Elena Katok & Axel Ockenfels, 2004. "How Effective Are Electronic Reputation Mechanisms? An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1587-1602, November.
    4. Vanessa Sandoval-Romero & Vincent Larivière, 2020. "The national system of researchers in Mexico: implications of publication incentives for researchers in social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 99-126, January.
    5. Funk, Matt, 2008. "On the Problem of Sustainable Economic Development: A Theoretical Solution to this Prisoner's Dilemma," MPRA Paper 19025, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Jun 2008.
    6. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    7. Rockenbach, Bettina & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim, 2012. "Sharing information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 689-698.
    8. Britta Hoyer & Dirk van Straaten, 2021. "Anonymity and Self-Expression in Online Rating Systems - An Experimental Analysis," Working Papers Dissertations 70, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    9. Engström, Per & Forsell, Eskil, 2018. "Demand effects of consumers’ stated and revealed preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 43-61.
    10. Chrysanthos Dellarocas, 2003. "The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(10), pages 1407-1424, October.
    11. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    12. Sándor Soós & Zsófia Vida & András Schubert, 2018. "Long-term trends in the multidisciplinarity of some typical natural and social sciences, and its implications on the SSH versus STM distinction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 795-822, March.
    13. Geert Campenhout & Tom Caneghem & Steve Uytbergen, 2008. "A comparison of overall and sub-area journal influence: The case of the accounting literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(1), pages 61-90, October.
    14. Martin Abel & Rulof Burger & Patrizio Piraino, 2017. "The value of reference letters," Working Papers 06/2017, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.
    15. Juan Feng, 2004. "Optimal Allocation Mechanisms When Bidders Ranking for the objects is common," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 545, Econometric Society.
    16. Jonathan Levin, 2011. "The Economics of Internet Markets," Discussion Papers 10-018, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    17. Paul Resnick & Richard Zeckhauser & John Swanson & Kate Lockwood, 2006. "The value of reputation on eBay: A controlled experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 79-101, June.
    18. Cristiano Codagnone & Federico Biagi & Fabienne Abadie, 2016. "The Passions and the Interests: Unpacking the ‘Sharing Economy’," JRC Research Reports JRC101279, Joint Research Centre.
    19. Gesche, Tobias, 2018. "Reference Price Shifts and Customer Antagonism: Evidence from Reviews for Online Auctions," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181650, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    20. Dominik Gutt & Jürgen Neumann & Steffen Zimmermann & Dennis Kundisch & Jianqing Chen, 2018. "Design of Review Systems - A Strategic Instrument to shape Online Review Behavior and Economic Outcomes," Working Papers Dissertations 42, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:63:y:2005:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-005-0206-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.