How Many Scientific Papers Are Mentioned in Policy-Related Documents?
An empirical investigation using Web of Science and Altmetric data investigates how many papers are mentioned in policy-related documents. We find that less than 0.5% of the papers published in different subject categories are mentioned at least once in policy-related documents. Based on our results, we recommend that the analysis of (WoS) publications with at least one policy-related mention is repeated regularly (annually). Mentions in policy-related documents should not be used for impact measurement until new policy-related sites are tracked.
The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been heavily criticized over decades. This opinion piece argues that the JIF should not be demonized. It still can be employed for research evaluation purposes by carefully considering the context and academic environment.
Complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators
The tension between simple but invalid indicators that are widely used and more sophisticated indicators that are not used or cannot be used in evaluation practices because they are not transparent for users, cannot be calculated, or are difficult to interpret.
We present a set of computing tools and techniques that every researcher can and should adopt. These recommendations synthesize inspiration from our own work, from the experiences of the thousands of people who have taken part in Software Carpentry and Data Carpentry workshops over the past six years, and from a variety of other guides. Unlike some other guides, our recommendations are aimed specifically at people who are new to research computing.
A Systematic Identification and Analysis of Scientists on Twitter
Metrics derived from Twitter and other social media are increasingly used to estimate the broader social impacts of scholarship. Such efforts, however, may produce highly misleading results, as the entities that participate in conversations about science on these platforms are largely unknown.
How Scientific Success in Physics Depends on Network Positions
Utilizing 250,000 papers from ArXiv.org we construct large coauthorship networks to investigate how individual network positions influence scientific success. Surprisingly, inter(sub)disciplinary collaborations decrease the probability of getting a paper published in specialized journals for almost all positions.
Gender Representation on Journal Editorial Boards in the Mathematical Sciences
Women are known to comprise approximately 15% of tenure-stream faculty positions in doctoral-granting mathematical sciences departments in the United States. Compared to this pool, the likely source of journal editorships, we find that 8.9% of the 13067 editorships in our study are held by women.
The persistence of poor methods results partly from incentives that favor them, leading to the natural selection of bad science. This dynamic requires no conscious strategizing - no deliberate cheating nor loafing - by scientists, only that publication is a principle factor for career advancement.
It is an unfortunate convention of science that research should pretend to be reproducible; our top tips will help you mitigate this fussy conventionality, enabling you to enthusiastically showcase your irreproducible work.
Evaluating the impact of interdisciplinary research
A method that could be used by funding agencies, universities and scientific policy decision makers for hiring and funding purposes, and to complement existing methods to rank universities and countries.