Evaluation Of Scientific Work Research Articles

Analysis Effectiveness of Implementation Assessment as Learning on Metacognitive Skills

Objective: This study aims to determine the most effective application of assessment in improving metacognitive skills in the learning process. Method: The method used is a literature review. A literature review is defined as an investigation of scientific articles, books, and other sources related to a particular problem, field of research, or theory to provide an overview, summary, and evaluation of scientific work. This research method uses several steps, including (1) topic identification about Assessment as Learning and metacognitive skill; (2) search and select appropriate articles by Scopus and Google Scholar; (3) analyze and synthesize literature; and (4) text organization. Results: Assessment as learning can be applied using self-assessment, peer assessment, making portfolios and rubrics, as well as group discussions and the teacher. This approach can also be designed online or offline. Self-assessment and peer assessment are more effective in improving metacognitive skills in learning. Novelty: This study can provide an overview assessment design by actively involving learners to improve metacognitive skills, which can help realize the achievement of learning objectives.

Malá muzea a akademické prostředí – poddaný služebník a přehlíživý feudál, anebo vztah s potenciálem plodného partnerství?

The constant metrification of the humanities, following the example of the natural sciences, places ever higher demands on the evaluation of scientific work. The importance of research in museum activities is declining in parallel with the shrinking territorial importance and scope of the museum. “District” museums are primarily intended to document the past and present life of the catchment region in its totality and therefore have less opportunity to develop the narrow specialization that is a desirable prerequisite for valuable research. This fact primarily condemns district museums to the role of information databanks that provide a sophisticated service to academia, which exacerbates the whole problem by the fact that the results of their work are not ambitious and cannot be published at the museum level, frustrating them completely outside it.

Medical Publication and Scientometrics – a Writing and Preparation of Research Results in Fifth Steps for Publication in Scientific Journals

Background: Scientific research is the only real way and method for the proliferation of true knowledge in all spheres of science, but also in academic institutions. Medical, and in a broader sense biomedical scientific research, is a process of systematic research of current and important health problems related to defined aspects of physical, mental or social well-being of the population of local, regional or global character. Objective: As the fact that today is conducted a number of scientific researches in the field of medicine, it is necessary to define the steps by which it is carried out to make it universal and to have scientific value. This paper describes the research methods, study design, the way in which one should be written, and why it is important to publicize the same. The aim of this article is to present the current tools available in scientometry for the evaluation of scientific validity of published articles and explain the purpose. Methods: Special emphasis is placed on scientometrics as the science that evaluates scientific papers and their citation in the selected sample of journals. Results and Discussion: The most important satisfaction for any scientist should be the realization that the result of research in a certain way in the future will affect at least one person to be healthier, which should be fundamental to the realization of research in practice–at universities or specialized scientific laboratories and institutes. Scientometrics analyzes scientific articles and their citation in a selected sample of scientific journals. Bibliometrics denotes quantitative research of communication processes by applying appropriate mathematical and statistical methods to books and other communication media. Bibliometric methods are used for quantitative analysis of written materials. Citation provides guidelines for scientific work, because it stimulates scientists to deal with the most current areas of research, and organizes scientific article at the world level, or shapes and directs it. Citation is influenced by: article quality, understanding of the article, language in which the article is written, loyalty to a group of researchers, article type, etc. In this article we pointed that h-Index presents one of a set of valuable measures to determine scientific excellence (bibliometrics recognize also m-value as useful). Some of the indicators used in the evaluation of scientific work are: Impact factor (IF); Citation of the article; Journal citations; Number and order of authors, etc. Impact Factor is the number of citations of articles published in the journal during the previous two years divided by the total number of articles published in the journal during the same period. Factor of influence depends on: the quality of the journal, the language on which it was printed, the area it covers, the journal distribution system. Although the h-Index is a better measure than a citation impact factor (IF), it is still based on the opinions of other authors. Conclusion: Since research in medicine can affect the improvement of clinical and public health practices, it is necessary to conduct them. Only quality research with exact results offers the scientific community new information about the examined problem, and the researcher personal satisfaction, the possibility of communicating and conducting scientific dialogue with other members of the academic community, and opening opportunities to receive critical review of those who have insight into the research.

Hirsh’s index and the spirit of capitalism

The article presents some data and certain results of the analysis of the validity and effectiveness of modern science-based approaches, methods and specific science-metric criteria. Both positive and negative aspects and trends in science-metric criteria are indicated. A methodological retrospective of the evaluation of scientific work in different time periods is presented. The main attention of the authors is focused on the analysis of the effectiveness of using the Hirsch index to take into account the scientific results and achievements in the field of Russian science. The article contains specific data indicating the complexity and ambiguity of the analyzed situation. The specific examples, figures, facts and analytical data confirm the position of the authors. At the same time, the material of the publication contains quite just wishes and analyses, which, in our opinion, allow, to some extent, to solve (or approach the solution) a difficult task of assessing and taking into account the scientific achievements of contemporary Russian scientists.

Evaluation of scientific work in the library and information field

The author highlights the criteria for assessing library scientist's impact by the number of the publications using citation indices and Hirsch factor. The functions, advantages and drawbacks of citation indices are discussed, as well as the factors to affect Hirsch index. The author examines the credibility of the Russian Science Citation Index data and the quality of journal publications in the HAC list. Standards of originality in the Antiplagiat system and the quality of scientific publications in the library science, bibliography and bibliology are discussed. Some approaches toward scientific work evaluation in the modern library and information science are proposed. The author argues that the quantitative indicators should be combined with the expert assessment.

How to review a scientific paper

A review process is a key factor which ensures reliable and accurate presentation of new, useful, and original scientific knowledge to the public. Despite of many shortcomings which this evaluation of scientific work has, it is still an indispensable part of the process of scientific publishing. Different types of reviews have emerged throughout history, but the essence of the process itself has remained unchanged: before publishing, scientific results are subjected to unbiased, competent, and reliable assessment of their validity and originality. Unfortunately, neither worldwide, nor in our country, there is systematic and institutionalized education for performing such responsible task. The knowledge on review process is taught by senior colleagues, or is acquired through personal experience over time. As each young scientist is a potential reviewer, this article Is primarily intended for young people, as a manual, instruction on how to review a scientific paper and what should be kept in mind when the review report is written. After the analysis of the review process, ethical principles to which a reviewer should adhere to are highlighted, and finally, article intends to answer a question: How to review a scientific paper critically, correctly, and objectively? At the end, it is suggested how the review report should look like.

Using science and psychology to improve the dissemination and evaluation of scientific work.

Here I outline some of what science can tell us about the problems in psychological publishing and how to best address those problems. First, the motivation behind questionable research practices is examined (the desire to get ahead or, at least, not fall behind). Next, behavior modification strategies are discussed, pointing out that reward works better than punishment. Humans are utility seekers and the implementation of current change initiatives is hindered by high initial buy-in costs and insufficient expected utility. Open science tools interested in improving science should team up, to increase utility while lowering the cost and risk associated with engagement. The best way to realign individual and group motives will probably be to create one, centralized, easy to use, platform, with a profile, a feed of targeted science stories based upon previous system interaction, a sophisticated (public) discussion section, and impact metrics which use the associated data. These measures encourage high quality review and other prosocial activities while inhibiting self-serving behavior. Some advantages of centrally digitizing communications are outlined, including ways the data could be used to improve the peer review process. Most generally, it seems that decisions about change design and implementation should be theory and data driven.

PROBLEMS AND OUTLOOK OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN KAZAKHSTAN

Performance evaluation of scientific work on regional and individual levels can be achieved by the using scientometric methods of a quantitative analysis of bibliographic information available in such databases as Science Citation Index (SCI). Unfortunately, Kazakhstan scientific journals have not been included yet in the Thomson Reuters Corp. register of periodicals, that substantially distorts the actual national scientometric indexes. The analysis of Database “National Citation Reports” (Kazakhstan), which correlated with a contribution of Kazakhstan into the world science development, has shown the low level of research activities of Kazakhstan scientists on international arena. So, the share of international publications of Kazakhstan in the global flow is equal to 0,021 % (1044 doc.) that corresponds to the 87th place in the general list of countries of 177 names. Subject to the ranking of countries into groups by the number of the published works, Kazakhstan is referring to the group of 46 countries having 1000-10000 publications over 5 years, of which 8,6% in medicine. In this article the use of statistics and appropriate software by the authors of original articles in such journals as recommended by the Kazakh National Centre for Scientific & Technical Expertise (NCSTE) and included in the Database еlibrary.kz was evaluated. Research was conducted according to Research Report, due to which a research design and statistical analysis methods were estimated. In the rating of the research design, the authors of articles mostly used as follows: description of a series of cases–63,2%, description of the individual cases -27,1%, and description of specific cases–9,1%. A scope of selection in Section “Research Methods” was only calculated in 21,8% of cases, and in 63,9% of cases there was no description how the selection was carried out. Methods of analytical statistics were used in the 46,0% of cases. And there were references to the program package in use only in 17,5% of works. Thus shown that non-compliance with international standards in the preparation of scientific papers, primarily statistical requirements directly affect the quality and ratings of domestic articles.

On our duties as scientists

Our primary duty as scientists is to contribute to the progress of science. By doing so, we best fulfill our duties to the society at large. Our primary duty is not fulfilled by merely doing research, but rather by communicating our findings to the relevant scientific community. The role of this community in the scientific process, entails some important (secondary) duties towards this community (e.g., evaluation of scientific work and education of future generations of researchers). Needless to say, this essay presents my own subjective opinions regarding the aforementioned issues. I also seize the opportunity to express some related and less related opinions.

Comment on Walby's "Against Epistemological Chasms: The Science Question in Feminism Revisited": Can Democratic Values and Interests Ever Play a Rationally Justifiable Role in the Evaluation of Scientific Work?

Comment on Walby's "Against Epistemological Chasms: The Science Question in Feminism Revisited": Can Democratic Values and Interests Ever Play a Rationally Justifiable Role in the Evaluation of Scientific Work?

Comment on Hekman's "Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited": Whose Standpoint Needs the Regimes of Truth and Reality?

I AGREE WITH SEVERAL of Susan Hekman's central arguments (in this issue). Feminist standpoint theory has indeed made a major contribution to feminist theory and, as she indicates at the end, to late twentieth-century efforts to develop more useful ways of thinking about the production of knowledge in local and global political economies. We can note that feminists are not the only contemporary social theorists to struggle with projects of extricating ourselves from some of the constraints of those philosophies of modernity that began to emerge in Europe three or more centuries ago. Moreover, Hekman is certainly right that current reevaluations of marxian projects, of the "difference" issues, and of poststructuralism are three sites of both resources and challenges to the further development of standpoint theories, as they must be also for other contemporary social theorizing. These last three sets of issues are intimately related. The modern understanding of how to go about knowledge seeking, retained in the marxian epistemology, assumed that one should imagine a kind of single, ideal knower, "homogeneously" constituted since he purportedly represented no particular cultural identity, interests, or discourses. The proletarian standpoint, once it was generalized as the truly human standpoint, provided just such an ideal unitary knower no less than did social contract theory's "rational man." Issues neither of differences between knowers nor of the cultural constitution of knowledge-the multicultural and poststructuralist issue about discourses-could arise as long as knowledge acquisition was figured as performing the "God-trick," as Donna Haraway famously put the point (1988). Thus, early articulations of feminist standpoint theory retained some of these problematic modernist assumptions about truth and reality. However, it seems to me that Hekman distorts the central project of standpoint theorists when she characterizes it as one of figuring out how to justify the truth of feminist claims to more accurate accounts of reality. Rather, it is relations between power and knowledge that concern these thinkers. They have wanted to identify ways that male supremacy and the production of knowledge have coconstituted each other in the past and

A Large Community but Few Peers: A Study of the Scientific Community in India

transformation. Comparative analysis of science in different societies would illuminate specific features of the structure and organization of science, values and norms guiding the cognitive activities of the communities of scientists and interaction between science on the one hand and economic and political power structures of a given society on the other. In the context of underdeveloped countries, linkages between members of their scientific communities on the one hand and their counterparts in the advanced Western countries on the other should be studied. It is important to understand such interactions based on shared interests including cognitive orientations. This paper is an attempt to understand the Indian scientific community by focusing on the pattern of evaluation of scientific work.

Theoretical authority in social science

Theoretical authority is the evaluation of scientific work by its compatibility with what is accepted as confirmed theoretical knowledge. It is manifested as the application of the criteria of “significance” and “coherence”. I argue that the logical “legitimacy” of theoretical authority depends upon one's philosophy of social science. My purpose is not to discern which philosophy of social science is correct, but to demonstrate that efforts to do so have important implications for the organizational norms appropriate for social science. Disputes within the philosophy of social science are ipso facto disputes over the “constitutional principles” of social scientific disciplines.