publications
Send us a link
Scientific prizes confer credibility to persons, ideas, and disciplines, provide financial incentives, and promote community-building celebrations. The article examines the growth dynamics and interlocking relationships found in the worldwide scientific prize network.
In academia, assessment of grant proposals is the forward‐looking review, the laying out and checking of your research plan, while peer reviews in journals are the final, consolidatory scrutiny before publication. An important difference between these academic checkpoints and my, admittedly somewhat forced fashionista analogy, is that in academia the two stages of review take place independently of each other.
OCLC Research and euroCRIS, the international organization for research information, partnered to develop a survey and synthesize the results to examine how research institutions worldwide are applying research information management (RIM) practices.
Researchers who are mobile get more citations and build broader teams of collaborators than those who aren't, concludes a recent study.
As open access (OA) to publications continues to gather momentum, we should continuously question whether it is moving in the right direction.
In October 2018, former Catalyst Grant winner 'Ada Lovelace Day' (ALD) celebrated its tenth year of showcasing the achievements of overlooked women in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). Championing for greater diversity in STEM, and changing the culture and demographics of research, is a year-round effort, and one that ALD supports. We wanted to help extend the celebration of women in science throughout the year, but also use the tools we have available to us to scientifically analyse the state of gender imbalance in research, and evaluate whether these are changing over time.
A team of 186 researchers conducted replications of 28 classic and contemporary findings in psychology.
Although citations and related metrics like the H-index are widely used in academia to evaluate research and allocate resources, the referencing decisions on which they are based are poorly understood. This paper investigates whether authors reference works that influenced them most or those they believe the readers will value most.
Review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) processes significantly affect how faculty direct their own career and scholarly progression. Although RPT practices vary between and within institutions, and affect various disciplines, ranks, institution types, genders, and ethnicity in different ways, some consistent themes emerge when investigating what faculty would like to change about RPT. For instance, over the last few decades, RPT processes have generally increased the value placed on research, at the expense of teaching and service, which often results in an incongruity between how faculty actually spend their time vs. what is considered in their evaluation. Another issue relates to publication practices: most agree RPT requirements should encourage peer-reviewed works of high quality, but in practice, the value of publications is often assessed using shortcuts such as the prestige of the publication venue, rather than on the quality and rigor of peer review of each individual item.
A Comparative Study on Recruitment and Selection of Early-career Researchers
The State of Open Data 2018 looks at global attitudes towards open data. It includes survey results of researchers and a collection of articles from industry experts, as well as a foreword from Ross Wilkinson, Director, Global Strategy at Australian Research Data Commons.
A paper arguing that the uncritical pursuit of reproducibility as an overarching epistemic value is misleading and potentially damaging to scientific advancement.
What contributes to gender-associated differences in preferences such as the willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust? Falk and Hermle studied 80,000 individuals in 76 countries who participated in a Global Preference Survey and compared the data with country-level variables. They observed that the more that women have equal opportunities, the more they differ from men in their preferences.
Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy identifies and explains the role of citizen science within innovation in science and society, and as a vibrant and productive science-policy interface. The scope of this volume is global, geared towards identifying solutions and lessons to be applied across science, practice and policy. The chapters consider the role of citizen science in the context of the wider agenda of open science and open innovation, and discusses progress towards responsible research and innovation, two of the most critical aspects of science today.
What if scientists benefit from participating in research grant competitions?
The h-index has gained wide acceptance as a bibliometric indicator of individual scientific achievement. In this paper, J. E. Hirsch proposes an alternative to replacing the h-index with a better index, the h-alpha-index, to address at least some of its deficiencies.
A paper that examines the relationship between placement of publications in Top Five journals and receipt of tenure in academic economics departments.
Manuscript showing how Augmented Reality, which is the projection of virtual information onto a real-world object, can be applied in the classroom and in the laboratory.
A large-scale analysis of the state of open access pulising across various countries from 1990 to 2016.
The implications of a simultaneous redirection of the big publishers' business strategy towards open access business models and the acquisition of scholarly infrastructure utilizing the conceptual framework of rent-seeking theory.
A factsheet summarising why the UK leaving the EU with no-deal is a bad deal for science, and outlining what a deal for science should look like.
The new version of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity will be published today.
Study finds that compliance with the European Commission requirement for all trials to post results on to the EUCTR within 12 months of completion has been poor, with half of all trials non-compliant.
