ScienceGeist

DORA launched a new virtual discussion series for public and private research funders. The goal of the series is to increase communication about research assessment reform by providing a space for funders to share and discuss new initiatives, with the hope that this will ultimately serve as a platform to accelerate the spread of good research assessment policies and practices.

Citations are ubiquitous in evaluating research, but how exactly they relate to what they are thought to measure is unclear. This article investigates the relationships between citations, quality, and impact using a survey with an embedded experiment.

Alison Mudditt looks at the recently released TOP Factor from the Center for Open Science, and the bigger picture of shifting the nature of research assessment.

Researchers are used to being evaluated based on indices like the impact factors of the scientific journals in which they publish papers and their number of citations. A team of 14 natural scientists from nine countries are now rebelling against this practice, arguing that obsessive use of indices is damaging the quality of science.

Altmetrics have been an important topic in the context of open science for some time.

Academics can excel in many areas, but thus far they have primarily been assessed based on research achievements. From now on, the public knowledge institutions and research funders want to consider academics' knowledge and expertise more broadly in determining career policy and grant requirements.

Evaluation reforms will go round in circles without conceptual clarity, warns Anna Hatch.

Proposals include new job classifications, a rolling back of metrics, and shorter publication lists in a bid to end excessive 'emphasis on research performance'.

Proposing a model for thinking about the interactions of rigor, cogency, accessibility, significance, openness, and impact in scholarly quality.