Send us a link
The extent to which researchers can assess the impact of their public engagement is often under-analysed and limited to success stories. Drawing on the example of development aid, it is argued that we need to widen the parameters for assessing public engagement.
In this post it is discussed how open research can lead to economic benefits. The author suggests that future open research policies should focus on developing research discovery, translation and the capacity for research utilisation outside of the academy.
Canada’s top universities and research institutes spent $5.7 billion on research and development (R&D), but generated less than $75 million from licensing their innovations in 2017. That’s an average return on investment of 1.3 per cent.
At Elsevier's International Center for the Study of Research, experts will examine research using metrics and other qualitative and quantitative methods.
The Journal Impact Factor has been widely critiqued as a measure of individual academic performance. However, it is unclear whether these criticisms and high profile declarations, such as DORA, have led to significant cultural change.
Survey finds that 40% of research-intensive universities mention the controversial metric in review documents - despite efforts to dampen its influence.
Ten people who mattered in science in 2018. Picks include a rogue gene-editor, a wunderkind physicist and a DNA detective who helped catch a serial killer.
The idea of the conference is to bring to the fore the impact contributions of social sciences and humanities (SSH) research to transformative national and European research and innovation agendas, as well as to openly reflect on and structurally discuss the topic. Due to the huge interest in the conference and limited seating, a live-streaming of the main sessions of the conference on both conference days is offered.
Despite vast increases in the time and money spent on research, progress is barely keeping pace with the past. What went wrong?
A new generation of scientists is confounding expectations and proving much more willing to engage with the public, not only because it benefits their development as researchers but also out of a sense of duty to society and a desire to have a positive impact on public perceptions of science.
A novel set of text- and citation-based metrics that can be used to identify high-impact and transformative works. The 11 metrics can be grouped into seven types: Radical-Generative, Radical-Destructive, Risky, Multidisciplinary, Wide Impact, Growing Impact, and Impact (overall).
Funders Jean Lebel and Robert McLean describe a new tool for judging the value and validity of science that attempts to improve lives.
Asking whether Twitter allows scientists to promote their findings primarily to other scientists ("inreach"), or whether it can help them reach broader, non-scientific audiences ("outreach"). Results should encourage scientists to invest in building a social media presence for scientific outreach.
A growing gap exists between an academic sector with little capacity for collective action and increasing demand for routine performance assessment by research organizations and funding agencies. This gap has been filled by database providers. By selecting and distributing research metrics, these commercial providers have gained a powerful role in defining de-facto standards of research excellence without being challenged by expert authority.
The role of faculty hiring networks in shaping the spread of ideas in computer science, and the importance of where in the network an idea originates: research from prestigious institutions spreads more quickly and completely than work of similar quality originating from less prestigious institutions.
Findings of a recent Academy of Management report that sought answers to these questions by surveying its 20,000 members and conducting a selection of in-depth interviews with prominent figures.
Academia has relied on citation count as the main way to measure the impact or importance of research, informing metrics such as the Impact Factor and the h-index. But how well do these metrics actually align with researchers’ subjective evaluation of impact and significance?
A single academic paper, published by three Australian researchers in 2007, has been cited by Wikipedia editors over 2.8 million times - the next most popular work only shows up a little more than 21,000. And the researchers behind it didn't have a clue.
