Expert Evaluation in the Flow of Information Science

AbstractInformation science is dealing with the study of all aspects of information, from its generation to its use, together with the planning processes and services for an efficient flow of information. This involves the transfer of knowledge, which is the crucial epistemological question of information science. In modern times, this is a very important issue because modern professional society is based on expert knowledge, which is founded on scientific research. The circle of scientific information is completed when all phases of information flow are connected. A completed information circle provides sustainable knowledge, scientific upgrading and development of science. In this way, the inputs and efforts in scientific research projects are confirmed. Scientific information today is still based on the publication of scientific papers. Published research results are the basis for assessing the quality of research work. Quality and responsiveness of scientific research are determined by using bibliometric methods and on the base of expert evaluation. Expert evaluation has a decisive influence on several levels of scientific research and publishing activities. It is important to maximize the objectivity - impartiality of expert evaluation. This article presents the baseline survey of the expert evaluation systems and the review of relevant work in this area.

• Publication year

  2014

• Venue

  Knjižnica

• Publication date

  2014-09-05

• Fields of study

  Not labeled

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.55741/knj.58.1-2.13932
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Foundations of library and information science

  2016cited by this paper
• Research Methods in Information

  2014cited by this paper
• From funding agencies to scientific agency

  2014cited by this paper
• Assigning evaluators to research grant applications: the case of Slovak Research and Development Agency

  2014cited by this paper
• Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism

  2014cited by this paper
• The objectivity of national research foundation peer review in South Africa assessed against bibliometric indexes

  2013cited by this paper
• Bias in peer review

  2013cited by this paper
• A quantitative study on the effectiveness of peer review for academic journals

  2012cited by this paper
• Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics

  2011influential reference
• Scientific peer review

  2011influential reference
• Scientometric indicators: peer-review, bibliometric methods and conflict of interests

  2010cited by this paper
• Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average

  2010cited by this paper
• Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine. Reliability, fairness, and validity

  2009influential reference
• Persistent nepotism in peer-review

  2008cited by this paper
• Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications.

  2007cited by this paper
• A new reader trial approach to peer review in funding research grants: An Australian experiment

  2006cited by this paper
• Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals

  2006cited by this paper
• Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions

  2005cited by this paper
• Strengthening Peer Review in Federal Agencies that Support Education Research.

  2004cited by this paper
• The Influence of Peer Review on the Research Assessment Exercise

  2004cited by this paper
• The history of the peer-review process.

  2002cited by this paper
• From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review

  2002cited by this paper
• Real Science. What it is, and what it means

  2001cited by this paper
• Evaluating science and scientists: An East‐West dialogue on research evaluation in post‐communist Europe

  2001cited by this paper
• The metrics of science and technology

  2001influential reference
• Theory and metatheory of information science: a new interpretation

  1998cited by this paper
• Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?

  1998cited by this paper
• Measuring R&D Performance-State of the Art

  1997cited by this paper
• Peerless Science: Peer Review and U. S. Science Policy

  1990cited by this paper
• Peer review at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

  1990cited by this paper
• Information Science in Theory and Practice

  1987cited by this paper
• Chance and consensus in peer review.

  1981cited by this paper
• Competence is Not Enough@@@Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase one of a Study.

  1980cited by this paper
• Improving the Peer-review Process for Grant Applications

  year unknowncited by this paper

• No citing papers are available for this paper.