RAQAMLI AXBOROT DAVRIDA ILMIY MANBALARNING ISHONCHLILIGINI BAHOLASH METODLARI
Keywords:
ilmiy manbalar, ishonchlilik baholash, raqamli axborot, bibliometrik tahlil, peer-review, ochiq kirish, DOI tizimi, sun'iy intellekt, sifat nazorati, axborot savodxonligi.Abstract
Ushbu maqolada raqamli axborot davrida ilmiy manbalarning
ishonchliligini baholashning dolzarb muammolari ko'rib chiqiladi. Internetning jadal
rivojlanishi va sun'iy intellekt texnologiyalarining tarqalishi ilmiy bilimlar oqimini
misli ko'rilmagan darajada oshirdi, biroq bir vaqtning o'zida soxta va sifatsiz
ma'lumotlar hajmini ham keskin ko'paytirdi. Maqolada ilmiy manbalarning
ishonchliligini baholashning asosiy mezonlari, metodologik yondashuvlari va amaliy
vositalari tahlil qilinadi. Tadqiqot doirasida bibliometrik tahlil, ekspert baholash,
raqamli identifikator tizimlari va sun'iy intellekt asosidagi saralash metodlari
o'rganiladi. Natijalar shuni ko'rsatadiki, kompleks ko'p mezonli baholash tizimlarini
qo'llash ilmiy manbalarning ishonchliligini aniqlashda samaradorlikni sezilarli
darajada oshiradi. Olingan xulosalar o'qituvchilar, tadqiqotchilar va axborot
mutaxassislariga maqsadli amaliy yo'l-yo'riq beradi.
References
1. ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries). (2016). Framework
for Information Literacy for Higher Education. American Library Association.
2. Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature,
489(7415), 179-179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a
3. Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A
bibliometric analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 66(11), 2215-2222.
4. Burbules, N. C. (2001). Paradoxes of the Web: The ethical dimensions of
credibility. Library Trends, 49(3), 441-453.
5. Caulfield, M. (2019). SIFT (The Four Moves). Hapgood.
https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/
6. Else, H. (2023). Abstracts written by fool scientists. Nature, 613(7944), 423
423.
7. Else, H., & Van Noorden, R. (2021). The fight against fake-paper factories
that churn out sham science. Nature, 591(7851), 516-519.
8. Guyatt, G. H., et al. (2008). GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating
quality of evidence. BMJ, 336(7650), 924-926.
9. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research
output. PNAS, 102(46), 16569-16572.
10. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false.
PLOS Medicine, 2(8), e124.
11. Moed, H. F. (2006). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer.
