Analysis and Development of Quality Assessment Indicators of Scientific Articles on Art Based on the Theory of Norms and Counter-Norms in Science

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Art Research, Faculty of Arts, Shahed University, Teh ran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Art Research, Faculty of Arts, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Scientometrics Department, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Purpose:The scientific journal assessment worksheets are the most important tool for evaluating the quality of scientific papers. The purpose of this research is an objective and qualitative description of indices used in the worksheets for the evaluation of Art scientific research journals in Iran and to acknowledge their shortcomings in comparison with the norms of science from the Robert King Merton's and Mitroff’s Counter-Norms in Science perspective.
Methodology: The research approach in this study is QUN)qual), combining survey and content analysis. Statistical samples consisted of nine worksheets developed for the evaluation of specialized art journal articles with a scientific research rank. Moreover, 14 experts in the fields of Scientometrics and art were invited to provide feedback on the extent to which the evaluation criteria used in the evaluation worksheets are in conformity with Merton’s science norms. Data collection was done in two forms including library research, referring to scientific journals databases, and structured interviews. In order to uncover the existing status of the indicators from the researcher-made checklist, Excel software and a questionnaire were used as research instruments. The collected data were analyzed by descriptive statistics along with relevant tables and charts.
Findings: Findings of the research show that out of the total 53 existing indicators, the index of "using sufficient and new valid sources (internal and external)" had the highest frequency (77.78%). The findings also indicated that the other 26 indicators had the lowest frequency percentage (11.11%). Moreover, these indices are consistent with the six out of seven of Merton's science norms (less than 18%).
Conclusion: The obtained results revealed the unbalanced distribution of components and indicators of evaluation in these worksheets and their non-conformance to the norms of science, necessitating their revision. So as a result, the new worksheet contains 10 components and 44 indicators designed base on findings and views of experts.

Keywords

References

ارشاد، فرهنگ، قارانی، معصومه، میرزایی، سید آیت‌الله. (1384). تحلیل اسناد داوری مقاله‌های مجله جامعه‌شناسی ایران، مجله جامعه‌شناسی ایران، دوره ششم، شماره 4، ص ص. 33-3.
افشاری، معصومه؛ مهرام، بهروز؛ نوغانی، محسن. (1392). بررسی و تدوین شاخص‌های ارزیابی کیفیت مقاله‌های علمی‌ـ‌پژوهشی در حوزه علوم انسانی مبتنی بر نظریه هنجارهای علم مرتن، فصلنامه علمی‌ـ‌پژوهشی سیاست علم و فناوری، سال ششم، شماره 1، ص ص. 66-49.
ارسطورپور، شعله، (1391)، فرم‌های داوری مقالات در پیایندهای علمی و مسائل مرتبط، کلیات، کتاب ماه اطلاعات، ارتباطات و دانش‌شناسی، سال پانزدهم، شمارۀ نهم، 26-31.
پاشنگ، محمدرضا؛ نورمحمدی، حمزه‌علی؛ نوروزی چاکلی، عبدالرضا. (1394). تحلیل سرانه نشریات علوم پزشکی ایران و انطباق آن با تعداد پژوهشگران این حوزه. تحقیقات کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی دانشگاهی، 49 (4)، ص ص. 15-1
ربانی، علی؛ ربانی، رسول؛ همتی، رضا؛ قاضی طباطبایی، محمود؛ ودادهیر، ابوعلی. (1390). شیوه‌های جدید تولید دانش و علم‌ورزی ...، فصلنامه اخلاق در علوم و فناوری، سال ششم، شماره 1، ص ص. 24-12.
قانعی‌راد، محمدامین و قاضی‌پور، فریده. (1381). عوامل هنجاری و سازمانی مؤثر بر میزان بهره‌وری اعضای هیئت ‌علمی، فصلنامه پژوهش، شماره 4، ص ص. 167-206.
نوروزی چاکلی، عبدالرضا، نورمحمدی، حمزه‌علی، وزیری، اسماعیل، اعتمادی فرد، علی (1386)، تولید علم در ایران در سال‌های 2005 و 2006، بر اساس آمار مؤسسۀ اطلاعات علمی (آی.اس.آی)، فصلنامه کتاب، شماره 71، ص ص. 90-71.
Bucchi, M. (2004). Science in Society. London: Rutledge.
Cannavo, L. (1997). Sociological Models of Science Knowledge. International Sociology 12(4): 475-496.
European commission, (2008). European Educational Research Quality Indicator (EERQI), Project No. 217549.
Fabes, R.A; Martin, C.L; Hanish; L.D. and Updegraff, K.A. (2000). Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Developmental Research in the Twenty-First Century: Force and Counterforce, Child Development, 71(1), pp. 212-221.  
Goldin, I.; & Ashley, K. (2010). Elicting Informative Feedback in Peer Review: Importance of Problem-Specific Scaffolding. "Learning by Reviewing through Peer Feedback Refinement." Proceedings of the Workshop on Computer-Supported Peer Review in Education, 10th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Pittsburgh, USA. Retrieved 16-7-2012 from: http://www.cspred.org/proceedings/2-cspred2010_submission_7.pdf.
Hames, I. (2007). Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Merton RK. (1973). the Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mitriff, I.I, (1974). “Norms and counter-norms in a select group of Apollo moon Scientists-Case study of ambivalence of scientists”, American Sociological Review, 39, pp. 579-595.
Steinke, A. (2003). Peer Review Forms: Getting the Best from Your Reviewers. Science Editor, Vol. 26(5): 158.
Quality Criteria for Assessment of Education Research in Different Contexts. (2009). Teaching and Learning Research Program. No. 80. Retrieved 16-7-2012 from: http://www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/Oancea%20 RB%2080%20FINAL.pdf.
 Resnik, DB. (1998). the Ethics of Science: An Introduction. London: Rutledge.
Rockwell, S. (2005). Ethics of Peer Review: A Guide for Manuscript Reviewers.
Retrieved.16.7.2012.from:http//medicine.yale.edu/therapeuticradiology/Images/Ethica_Issues_in_Peer_Review_tcm307-34211.pdf.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics