他山之石，能否攻錯？談「舊金山宣言」與「萊登宣言」所帶來的啟示

What We Have Learned from San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment and Leiden Manifesto?

10.6120/JoEMLS.2017.541/0015.OR.AM

陳明俐(Carey Ming-Li Chen)；林雯瑤(Wen-Yau Cathy Lin)

舊金山宣言 ； 萊登宣言 ； 資訊計量學 ； 研究評估指標 ； San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) ； Leiden Manifesto ； Informetrics ； Research evaluation indicator

教育資料與圖書館學

54卷1期（2017 / 03 / 01）

111 - 129

繁體中文

近年在政府或機構層級對於學術社群成員的研究表現評估多以各種指標配合同儕審查的方式進行，但對於研究評估指標的設計與應用均有諸多爭議。本文介紹舊金山宣言與萊登宣言的發展過程，並概述其準則內容，最終並比較兩者的差異，希望透過本文能喚起台灣學術社群對於各種與研究評估指標相關爭議的重視與省思，凝聚使用研究評估指標的共識，進而對未來發展具在地特質的宣言或有所助益。

In recent years, the research performance evaluation of members of the academic community conducted by government or institutions has been applied with multiple indicators and peer review, however, there are many controversies about the design and application of research evaluation indicators. This article aims to introduce the development process of San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and Leiden Manifesto and summarize their contents of guidelines and attempts to compare the differences between these two documents. It hopes that this article can arise the attention and reflection of research evaluation indicators and relevant issues from Taiwan academic community to reach consensus of utilization of research evaluation indicators. It will be beneficial to develop the version of declaration with local characteristics in the future.

1. DORA. (2012). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Retrieved from http://www.ascb.org/dora/
2. de Rijcke, S. (2014). The Leiden Manifesto in the making proposal of a set of principles on the use of assessment metrics in the S&T indicators conference. Retrieved from https://citationculture.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/the-leiden-manifesto-in-the-making-proposalof-a-set-of-principles-on-the-use-of-assessment-metrics-in-the-st-indicators-conference/
3. Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics. (2015). Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Retrieved from http://www.leidenmanifesto.org
4. Loughborough University. (2016). Using bibliometrics responsibly. Retrieved from http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/scholcomms/assessment/respmetrics/
5. Alberts, B.(2013).Impact factor distortions.Science,340(6134),787.
6. David, D.,Frangopol, P.(2015).The lost paradise, the original sin, and the Dodo bird: A scientometrics Sapere Aude manifesto as a reply to the Leiden manifesto on scientometrics.Scientometrics,105(3),2255-2257.
7. Halevi, G.(2014).Reporting back: STI 2014 Leiden, The Netherlands.Research Trends,39
8. Hicks, D.,Wouters, P.,Waltman, L.,de Rijcke, S.,Rafols, I.(2015).Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics.Nature,520(7548),429-431.
9. Jacobs, H.(2013).Dear DORA.EMBO Reports,14(11),947-947.
10. OECD(2016).OECD science, technology and innovation outlook 2016.Paris, France:Author.
11. Pulverer, B.(2015).Dora the brave.The EMBO Journal,34(12),1601-1602.
12. Reich, E. S.(2013).Science publishing: The golden club.Nature,502(7471),291-293.
13. Schmid, S. L.(2013).,未出版
14. Verma, I. M.(2015).Impact, not impact factor.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,112(26),7875-7876.
15. Waltman, L.,Van Eck, N. J.(2016).The need for contextualized scientometric analysis: An opinion paper.Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators,Valencia, Spain:
16. Wilsdon, J.,Allen, L.,Belfiore, E.,Campbell, P.,Curry, S.,Hill, S.,Johnson, B.(2015).The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management.
17. Wouters, P.,Glänzel, W.,Gläser, J.,Rafols, I.(2013).The dilemmas of performance indicators of individual researchers: A urgent debate in bibliometrics.ISSI Newsletter,9(3),48-53.