In the 21st Century, research is increasingly data- and computation-driven. Researchers, funders, and the larger community today emphasize the traits of openness and reproducibility. In March 2017, 13 mostly early-career research leaders who are building their careers around these traits came together with ten university leaders (presidents, vice presidents, and vice provosts), representatives from four funding agencies, and eleven organizers and other stakeholders in an NIH- and NSF-funded one-day, invitation-only workshop titled “Imagining Tomorrow’s University.” Workshop attendees were charged with launching a new dialog around open research – the current status, opportunities for advancement, and challenges that limit sharing.
The workshop examined how the internet-enabled research world has changed, and how universities need to change to adapt commensurately, aiming to understand how universities can and should make themselves competitive and attract the best students, staff, and faculty in this new world. During the workshop, the participants re-imagined scholarship, education, and institutions for an open, networked era, to uncover new opportunities for universities to create value and serve society. They expressed the results of these deliberations as a set of 22 principles of tomorrow's university across six areas: credit and attribution, communities, outreach and engagement, education, preservation and reproducibility, and technologies.
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.
Scientific Prize Network Predicts Who Pushes the Boundaries of Science
Scientific prizes confer credibility to persons, ideas, and disciplines, provide financial incentives, and promote community-building celebrations. The authors examine the growth dynamics and interlocking relationships found in the worldwide scientific prize network. They focus on understanding how the knowledge linkages among prizes and scientists' propensities for prizewinning relate to knowledge pathways between disciplines and stratification within disciplines. Their data cover more than 3,000 different scientific prizes in diverse disciplines and the career histories of 10,455 prizewinners worldwide for over 100 years. They find several key links between prizes and scientific advances. First, despite an explosive proliferation of prizes over time and across the globe, prizes are more concentrated within a relatively small group of scientific elites, and ties among elites are highly clustered, suggesting that a relatively constrained number of ideas and scholars push the boundaries of science. For example, 64.1% of prizewinners have won two prizes and 13.7% have won five or more prizes. Second, certain prizes strongly interlock disciplines and subdisciplines, creating key pathways by which knowledge spreads and is recognized across science. Third, genealogical and coauthorship networks predict who wins multiple prizes, which helps to explain the interconnectedness among celebrated scientists and their pathbreaking ideas.
Practices and Patterns in Research Information Management: Findings from a Global Survey
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.
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.
Why (almost) Everything We Know About Citations is Wrong: Evidence from Authors
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.
The Evaluation of Scholarship in Academic Promotion and Tenure Processes: Past, Present, and Future - F1000Research
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.
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.
Relationship of Gender Differences in Preferences to Economic Development
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
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.
An Index to Quantify an Individual's Scientific Leadership
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.
Inequality in Knowledge Production: The Integration of Academic Infrastructure by Big Publishers
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.
The Scientific Prize Network Predicts Who Pushes the Boundaries of Science
Using comprehensive new data on prizes and prizewinners worldwide and across disciplines, this study examines the growth dynamics and interlocking relationships found in the worldwide scientific prize network.
Gender and International Diversity Improves Equity in Peer Review
The acceptance rate for eLife manuscripts with male last authors was significantly higher than for female last authors, and this gender inequity was greatest when the team of reviewers was all male; mixed-gender gatekeeper teams lead to more equitable peer review outcomes.