Grant-in-Aid for Co-operative Research (A)
|Allocation Type||Single-year Grants |
|Research Institution||National Laboratory for High Energy Physics |
NAKAI Kozi Nat.Lab.for High Energy Physics, Physics Professor, 物理研究部, 教授 (40028155)
OKAZAKI Tsuneko Nagoya University, Faculty of Science Professor, 理学部, 教授 (10022584)
TATSUMOTO Narifumi Kyoto Univesity, South-East Asian Res.Cente Professor, 東南アジア研究センター, 教授 (50027588)
KUROKAWA Kiyoshi University of Tokyo, Faculty of Medicine Professor, 医学部, 教授 (30167390)
OTAWA Yoshiyuki NACSIS Asoc.Prof., 助教授 (60270443)
IE Yasuhiro Univ.of Tokyo, Inst.for Solid-State Physics Professor, 物性研究所, 教授 (30125984)
市川 惇信 国立環境研究所, 所長 (60016714)
井上 信幸 東京大学, 工学部, 教授 (60023719)
山本 真一 筑波大学, 大学研究センター, 助教授 (10220469)
根岸 正光 学術情報センター, 教授 (90114602)
|Project Period (FY)
1993 – 1994
Completed (Fiscal Year 1994)
|Keywords||Research Evaluation / Evaluation System / Subjective Evaluation and Data / Evaluation Index / Bibliometry / Lifetime of a Paper / 受賞 / 評価と意思決定 / 評価の明示性 / 評価システムの構築 / 評価指標の検討 / 評価の主観性と客観性|
At the suggestion of Science Council of MONBUSHO,a systematic study of the method of evaluating academic research activities in Japan has been made. Although the evaluation activities are important for decision-making processes at various stages of supporting researche programs, there has been no systematic study of this matter. The present study has been carried out in two steps. First, through a series of meetings by the study group of science advisers to MONBUSHO in all academic fields, basic philosophy and practical matter as well as possible impacts to academic research were discussed and summarized in an interim report. Then, with this report, public opinions to our summary were inquired by sending questionnair to more than 1,000 scientists. The final report was written based on the opinions of majority which were not very different from those in the interim report. The following points are major conclusions.
(1)The majority of scientists believe the importance of the evaluation to make Japanese academic research more active.
(2)Since the evaluation is a subjective activity by reviewer(s), the evaluation system must be designed to make fair and accurate judgments.
(3)The evaluation based on quantitative analyzes such as the bibliometric methods is desirable, and indeed applicable in many cases, but should be carefully applied.
Examples of the evaluation systems are listed in the report.Bibliometric analyzes of research activities are demonstrated to indicate merits and demerits of such analyzes. As the academic research activities are of full diversity, unification or standarization of the evaluation process is not only difficult but also dangerous.