CoARA无法将科学从行政评估的暴政中拯救出来
COARA will not save science from the tyranny of administrative evaluation
AI总结：
本文基于Kitcher的良序科学理论批判CoARA的研究评估改革，指出其行政化同行评议仍可能导致专家与无知暴政，并主张限制评估范围、建立公平程序。
摘要：
推进研究评估联盟（CoARA）协议是当前改革研究评估努力中的一块基石。CoARA倡导由同行评议构成、并由负责任的指标支持的研究行政评估，认为这对科学和社会都有益。可以借助Philip Kitcher关于民主社会中良序科学的概念，对其原则进行批判性审视。从Kitcher的视角看，CoARA的方法面临两个重大挑战：质量和影响力的定义由政府或评估机构决定，而不是通过广泛的公共审议产生；同时，少数精选科学家被赋予依据这些预定义标准评估研究的权力。这使评估容易受到Kitcher所警告的“专家暴政”和“无知暴政”的双重影响。要实现Kitcher的理想，需要将行政评估限制在研究人员招聘和项目资助等必要任务上，同时建立以公平原则为基础的程序。
英文摘要：
The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) agreement is a cornerstone in the ongoing efforts to reform research evaluation. CoARA advocates for administrative evaluations of research that rely on peer review, supported by responsible metrics, as beneficial for both science and society. Its principles can be critically examined through the lens of Philip Kitcher's concept of well-ordered science in a democratic society. From Kitcher's perspective, CoARA's approach faces two significant challenges: definitions of quality and impact are determined by governments or evaluation institutions rather than emerging from broad public deliberation, and a select group of scientists is empowered to assess research based on these predefined criteria. This creates susceptibility to both the ''tyranny of expertise'' and the ''tyranny of ignorance'' that Kitcher cautions against. Achieving Kitcher's ideal would require limiting administrative evaluations to essential tasks, such as researcher recruitment and project funding, while establishing procedures grounded in principles of fairness.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
