ScienceGeist

The development of preprint servers as self-organising peer review platforms could be the future of scholarly publication.

When social scientists think about big data, they often think in terms of quantitative number crunching. However, the growing availability of ‘big’ qualitative datasets presents new opportunities for qualitative research. 

Hayley Teasdale argues that PhD studies are an ideal time for developing your research communication and impact skills and growing your entrepreneurial and organizational capabilities.

Financial and social burdens of academic travel add an additional barrier to participation in research. If academia wants to address issues of diversity and equity in research, it must first acknowledge the effects of academic travel culture.

There is a wealth of advice and 'how to' guides available to academics on the subject of how research can have an impact on policy and practice. In this post Kathryn Oliver and Paul Cairney assess the value of this literature, arguing that unless researchers seek to situate research impact within processes of policymaking and academic knowledge production, this advice can ultimately reinforce current inequalities in research impact.

Gender bias in peer review has been much discussed in the wider research community. However, there have been few attempts to analyse the issue within the social sciences. This post highlights research undertaken by the Regional Studies Association to investigate the effect of gender on peer review outcomes.

The UK has benefitted from funder incentives that make Open Access appealing for authors, while US funders have taken a less interventionist approach to Open Access. This in turn has led to increased international collaboration for UK researchers.

Plan S raises challenging questions for the Global South. Even if Plan S fails to achieve its objectives the growing determination in Europe to trigger a “global flip” to open access suggests developing countries will have to develop an alternative strategy.

Reflections on the recent consultation period for Plan S, a funder led proposal for achieving universal open access to research papers.

Academic hiring and promotion committees and funding bodies often use publication lists as a shortcut to assessing the quality of applications. In order to avoid bias towards prestigious titles, plain language statements should become a standard feature of academic assessment.

How do early career researchers use Sci-Hub and why? In this post David Nicholas assesses early career researcher attitudes towards the journal pirating site.

Predatory conferences (conferences promoted to fraudulently make money from attendance fees) are becoming an increasingly common part of academic life. This post presents the Think. Check. Attend. initiative, which provides academics with an easy to use checklist to ascertain if a conference is legitimate or predatory.

What exactly is Open Science? Its lack of an appropriate common definition has meant Open Science can be a variety of things; a social justice issue, part of a political capitalist regime, or a form of traditional science. But this lack of consensus leaves room for Open Science to be co-opted and even exploited.

Ideas in support of an upward trend in universities and academics setting up their own presses in an environment increasingly dominated by large commercial publishing houses.

The way institutions conceptualise doctoral candidates - as individuals without baggage, able to devote all their time to their research - has very real consequences for those who do not fit this profile.

Research funders impose length limits on applications for practical reasons: to discourage epic submissions, and to ease the burden on reviewers. It’s also true that concise ideas are generally stronger ideas. But sticking to these limits can often seem a difficult and frustrating task.

Appointing data stewards and data champions can be key to improving research data management through positive cultural change.

A recent investigation led by an international group of journalists raised concerns over the scale of the problem of deceptive publishing practices, but the problem of predatory publishing was overstated while at the same time discrediting open access publishing.

Considering the future of research assessment, Elizabeth Gadd outlines how she believes research evaluation could be made better, fairer, and more meaningful. The resulting seven guiding principles…

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.

While results vary by field, there is a positive and stronger than linear relationship between productivity and quality.

Practical tips and suggestions that can help to empower ECRs to create their own pathways to impact that best suit their individual goals, circumstances, interests, and strengths.

What models or practices could be developed to help incentivize and reward innovation and diverse forms of scholarly communication and public engagement while reducing the risk to those who are seen to be diverging from traditional modes of professional practices and advancement?

The Free Journal Network was established earlier this year in order to nurture and promote journals that are free to both authors and readers and run according to the Fair Open Access Principles.

By tying rewards to metrics, organisations risk incentivising gaming and encouraging behaviours that may be at odds with their larger purpose. The culture of short-termism engendered by metrics also impedes innovation and stifles the entrepreneurial element of human nature.

Storytelling is easy to implement in your manuscript provided you know how. Think of the six plot elements - character, setting, tension, action, climax, resolution - and the three other story essentials - main theme, chronology, purpose. You’ll soon outline the backbone of your narrative and be ready to write a paper that is concise, compelling, and easy to understand.

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.