Search

When deciding which submissions should be peer reviewed, eLife editors consider whether they will be able to find high-quality reviewers, and whether the reviews will be valuable to the scientific community.

Simple Summary: The article studies the research output on sheep and goats from Greece; a country where small ruminant farming is the most important terrestrial animal farming business. Milk production from sheep and goats exceeds that from cattle and over 90% of total milk produced from sheep and goats is used for dairy products. Research output on sheep and goats have increased significantly from 1997 to 2022. The bulk of publications, 87.5% of relevant papers, has originated from four establishments: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki; University of Thessaly; Agricultural University of Athens and Hellenic Agricultural Organization—Dimitra. Papers were published most frequently in the journals Small Ruminant Research and Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society. The most frequent general topics of study were animal health-welfare and animal products. The findings have indicated that research has focused on milk production and diseases of the udder of small ruminants; moreover, there was accumulation of relevant research in Greece in some establishments only. The findings of the study can be used by researchers; stakeholders and Government entities to improve relevant research and to better allocate resources in the country. The study is a scientometrics evaluation of published articles performed in Greece on sheep and goats during the last 25 years, a period coinciding with implementation of reforms to shape and consolidate tertiary education and research establishments in the country. Objectives were: evaluation of the relevant publications and presentation of quantitative characteristics regarding scientific content and bibliometric details. The Web of Science platform was used (search terms: [[sheep OR goat*] OR [Ovis aries OR Capra hircus]] (1997–2022)) and 1080 papers were considered in detail. Throughout the study period, there was a clear progressive increase in numbers of papers published. The papers originated from 39 different entities, most from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (34.0%), University of Thessaly (28.0%), Agricultural University of Athens (21.2%) and Hellenic Agricultural Organization—Dimitra (13.6%). Papers were published in 318 different journals. Journals with more published papers were Small Ruminant Research and Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society. The most frequent general topic of study in the papers was health and welfare (46.7% of papers); second most frequent topic was animal products (18.6%). The papers have received 16,558 citations, i.e., οn average 15.4 citations per paper; the h-index was 56, the i10-index was 518 and the yearly citations per paper were 1.71. Papers on goats had higher impact than papers on sheep. There were 1711 individual authors, of which 728 were first or last authors. In total, 24 authors have each co-authored ≥2.5% of all papers; five authors were each first or last in that proportion of all papers. The findings have indicated that relevant research has focused on milk production and diseases of the udder of small ruminants; moreover, there was accumulation of relevant research in Greece in some establishments only. The findings of the study can be employed to initiate improved relevant research approaches in the country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Ukraine, Scopus data are used to evaluate academics. Existing shortcomings in the Ukrainian evaluation system allow them to publish in titles that have been delisted from Scopus, and continue to use those papers as credible research output for evaluation. The purpose of this study was to analyse the publishing activity of Ukrainian institutions in Scopus‐delisted titles (as of September 2021) in different fields between 2011 and 2020 and to attempt to appreciate how common this practice is among Ukrainian authors. Scopus was sourced to collect bibliographic and citations‐related data, while SciVal was used to analyse these data. The findings suggest that for 17 Ukrainian institutions, papers from titles that have been delisted from Scopus still play an important part of the publication achievement of their employees. In particular, in the field of economics, econometrics and finance, 46.92% of Ukrainian papers were published in a title that was excluded from Scopus. Moreover, the analysis indicated that in two Ukrainian institutions, the level of citation of such papers significantly exceeds the average number of citations to Scopus‐indexed papers in the same year and in the same field. Given that bibliometric indicators are also used for research assessment in other Eastern European countries, the results of this paper are applicable to a wider geographic context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assess whether ChatGPT 4.0 is accurate enough to perform research evaluations on journal articles to automate this time-consuming task. Test the extent to which ChatGPT-4 can assess the quality of journal articles using a case study of the published scoring guidelines of the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 to create a research evaluation ChatGPT. This was applied to 51 of my own articles and compared against my own quality judgements. ChatGPT-4 can produce plausible document summaries and quality evaluation rationales that match the REF criteria. Its overall scores have weak correlations with my self-evaluation scores of the same documents (averaging r=0.281 over 15 iterations, with 8 being statistically significantly different from 0). In contrast, the average scores from the 15 iterations produced a statistically significant positive correlation of 0.509. Thus, averaging scores from multiple ChatGPT-4 rounds seems more effective than individual scores. The positive correlation may be due to ChatGPT being able to extract the author's significance, rigour, and originality claims from inside each paper. If my weakest articles are removed, then the correlation with average scores (r=0.200) falls below statistical significance, suggesting that ChatGPT struggles to make fine-grained evaluations. The data is self-evaluations of a convenience sample of articles from one academic in one field. Overall, ChatGPT does not yet seem to be accurate enough to be trusted for any formal or informal research quality evaluation tasks. Research evaluators, including journal editors, should therefore take steps to control its use. This is the first published attempt at post-publication expert review accuracy testing for ChatGPT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology & Society is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Liposome is a spherical-shaped vesicle composed of one or more phospholipid bilayers, closely resembling cell membranes' structure. It has a novel drug delivery system (NDDS); the lipid bilayer can fuse with other bilayers, such as the cell membrane, thus delivering the liposome contents. The present study has been conducted to map the research productivity of 'liposomes as drug delivery' between 1980 and 2021. This study employed the scientometric method to analyze 629 research papers indexed in the Web of Science database. Different bibliometrics indicators were used to assess the annual research growth, prolific authors, authorship pattern, funding agencies, productive source, organization, country, author keywords, cited paper and cited references, etc. Biblioshiny, Bibexcel, VOSviewer, and MS Office were used to analyze the 629 published papers. The findings show that 629 publications were published between 1980 and 2001, with 24674 citations. 2018 and 2019 recorded the highest research with 49 publications and 758 and 471 citations, respectively. Journal of Controlled Release was the most relevant source in the field, with 45 publications and 3063 citations. LIU Y was the most productive author, with 15 publications and 342 citations. Northwestern University USA has the highest record with 11 publications, and the USA was the most productive country with 181 publications, while China emerged as a leading collaborator with the USA (19 publications). Liposomes and cationic liposomes were identified as the most important research themes. Permeability, ocular drug delivery, Chemotherapy, Cancer therapy, Hypoxia, Combination therapy, and hyaluronic acid were research topics that have gained recent popularity. At the same time, Vesicles targeted drug delivery, cellular uptake, ultrasound, Chitosan, and Pegylation were identified as the research areas that require further attention in the field of liposomes as drug delivery research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Scientific productivity is often evaluated by means of cumulative citation metrics. Different metrics produce different incentives. The H-index assigns full credit from a citation to each coauthor, and thus may encourage multiple collaborations in mid-list author roles. In contrast, the Hm-index assigns only a fraction 1/k of citation credit to each of k coauthors of an article, and thus may encourage research done by smaller teams, and in first or last author roles. Whether H and Hm indices are influenced by different authorship patterns has not been examined. Methods: Using a publicly available Scopus database, I examined associations between the numbers of research articles published as single, first, mid-list, or last author between 1990 and 2019, and the H-index and the Hm-index, among 18,231 leading researchers in the health sciences. Results: Adjusting for career duration and other article types, the H-index was negatively associated with the number of single author articles (partial Pearson r -0.06) and first author articles (-0.08), but positively associated with the number of mid-list (0.64) and last author articles (0.21). In contrast, all associations were positive for the Hm-index (0.04 for single author articles, 0.18 for first author articles, 0.24 for mid-list articles, and 0.46 for last author articles). Conclusion: The H-index and the Hm-index do not reflect the same authorship patterns: the full-credit H-index is predominantly associated with mid-list authorship, whereas the partial-credit Hm-index is driven by more balanced publication patterns, and is most strongly associated with last-author articles. Since performance metrics may act as incentives, the selection of a citation metric should receive careful consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Liposome is a spherical-shaped vesicle composed of one or more phospholipid bilayers, closely resembling cell membranes' structure. It has a novel drug delivery system (NDDS); the lipid bilayer can fuse with other bilayers, such as the cell membrane, thus delivering the liposome contents. The present study has been conducted to map the research productivity of 'liposomes as drug delivery' between 1980 and 2021. This study employed the scientometric method to analyze 629 research papers indexed in the Web of Science database. Different bibliometrics indicators were used to assess the annual research growth, prolific authors, authorship pattern, funding agencies, productive source, organization, country, author keywords, cited paper and cited references, etc. Biblioshiny, Bibexcel, VOSviewer, and MS Office were used to analyze the 629 published papers. The findings show that 629 publications were published between 1980 and 2001, with 24674 citations. 2018 and 2019 recorded the highest research with 49 publications and 758 and 471 citations, respectively. Journal of Controlled Release was the most relevant source in the field, with 45 publications and 3063 citations. LIU Y was the most productive author, with 15 publications and 342 citations. Northwestern University USA has the highest record with 11 publications, and the USA was the most productive country with 181 publications, while China emerged as a leading collaborator with the USA (19 publications). Liposomes and cationic liposomes were identified as the most important research themes. Permeability, ocular drug delivery, Chemotherapy, Cancer therapy, Hypoxia, Combination therapy, and hyaluronic acid were research topics that had gained recent popularity. At the same time, Vesicles targeted drug delivery, cellular uptake, ultrasound, Chitosan, and Pegylation were identified as the research areas that require further attention in the field of liposomes as drug delivery research.

In recent years, there has been increased attention given to how research assessment is conducted at different levels - research proposals, individual researchers, research organizations. In this context, the current paper explores existing literature regarding current research assessment approaches, and especially recommendations provided through four reference documents on the topic: the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (2013), the Leiden Manifesto (Hicks et al. 2015), Science Europe's Position Statement and Recommendations on Research Assessment Processes (2020), and the Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers (Moher et al. 2020). The aim is to provide a basis for analysing the legislative and normative framework regulating how researchers are being evaluated in Romania for hiring and career development, and then apply it to identify recommendations regarding how the latter can be improved. Some of the recommendations identified refer to aspects such as: the need to explore evaluation arrangements which incorporate research activity related practices, and that measure performance against research units' research goals; increased focus on qualitative approaches, and on scientific content, as opposed to performance in publication metrics; developing a broader list with indicators, including Open Science and societal relevance related; introducing the principle of transparency; developing a monitoring and evaluation framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a rapidly developing field of research that attracts significant funding from both the state and industry players. Such interest is driven by a wide range of AI technology applications in many fields. Since many AI research topics relate to computer science, where a significant share of research results are published in conference proceedings, the same applies to AI. The world leaders in artificial intelligence research are China and the United States. The authors conducted a comparative analysis of the bibliometric indicators of AI conference papers from these two countries based on Scopus data. The analysis aimed to identify conferences that receive above-average citation rates and suggest publication strategies for authors from these countries to participate in conferences that are likely to provide better dissemination of their research results. The results showed that, although Chinese researchers publish more AI papers than those from the United States, US conference papers are cited more frequently. The authors also conducted a correlation analysis of the MNCS index, which revealed no high correlation between MNCS USA vs. MNCS China, MNCS China/MNCS USA vs. MSAR, and MNCS China/MNCS USA vs. CORE ranking indicators.

Collaborative research causes problems for research assessments because of the difficulty in fairly crediting its authors. Whilst splitting the rewards for an article amongst its authors has the greatest surface-level fairness, many important evaluations assign full credit to each author, irrespective of team size. The underlying rationales for this are labour reduction and the need to incentivise collaborative work because it is necessary to solve many important societal problems. This article assesses whether full counting changes results compared to fractional counting in the case of the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021. For this assessment, fractional counting reduces the number of journal articles to as little as 10% of the full counting value, depending on the Unit of Assessment (UoA). Despite this large difference, allocating an overall grade point average (GPA) based on full counting or fractional counting gives results with a median Pearson correlation within UoAs of 0.98. The largest changes are for Archaeology (r=0.84) and Physics (r=0.88). There is a weak tendency for higher scoring institutions to lose from fractional counting, with the loss being statistically significant in 5 of the 34 UoAs. Thus, whilst the apparent over-weighting of contributions to collaboratively authored outputs does not seem too problematic from a fairness perspective overall, it may be worth examining in the few UoAs in which it makes the most difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past 5 years, we captured the perspectives from a broad array of research stakeholders to better understand the impact that current approaches to success and research assessment may have on the integrity and the quality of research. Here, we translate our findings in four actions that are urgently needed to foster better research. First, we need to address core research structures to overcome systemic problems of the research enterprise; second, we must realign research assessments to value elements that advance and strengthen science; third, we need to remodel, diversify, and secure research careers; and finally, we need to unite and coordinate efforts for change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The academic evaluation of teachers of languages other than English (LOTEs) has been extensively researched, especially from the perspective of academic publications. However, little attention has been paid to another key performance indicator in teacher assessment, namely, external research funding. Focusing on German language teachers (GLTs), this paper adopts a mixed methods approach to investigate the assessment requirements for LOTE teachers in terms of external research funding and the factors that may impact their accomplishments. Based on Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory and conservation of resources theory, we analyzed policy documents from the universities under investigation, examined "German or Germany-related" funding approvals, and conducted semi-structured interviews with eight GLTs to explore the environmental factors (individual context, institutional context, social context, chronological context) that may influence the survival of GLTs in terms of the requirements for external research funding. The findings indicate that factors from each ecological context interact with one another and have a combined influence on GLTs' external research funding application activity. Moreover, there is an imbalance between the academic demands faced by GLTs and the resource support that is available to them. This imbalance may affect the survival and development of GLTs and is likely to have a continuing influence throughout their career. The study concludes by offering some suggestions at different levels to facilitate the sustainable professional development of GLTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Definition: In the context of open science, universities, research-performing and funding organizations and authorities worldwide are moving towards more responsible research assessment (RRA). In 2022, the European Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) published an agreement with ten commitments, including the recognition of the "diversity of contributions to, and careers in, research", the "focus on qualitative evaluation for which peer review is central, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators", and the "abandon (of) inappropriate uses in research assessment of journal- and publication-based metrics". Research assessment (RA) is essential for research of the highest quality. The transformation of assessment indicators and procedures directly affects the underlying research information management infrastructures (also called current research information systems) which collect and store metadata on research activities and outputs. This entry investigates the impact of RRA on these systems, on their development and implementation, their data model and governance, including digital ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study is a scientometrics evaluation of published articles performed in Greece on sheep and goats during the last 25 years, a period coinciding with implementation of reforms to shape and consolidate tertiary education and research establishments in the country. Objectives were: evaluation of the relevant publications and presentation of quantitative characteristics regarding scientific content and bibliometric details. The Web of Science platform was used (search terms: [[sheep OR goat*] OR [Ovis aries OR Capra hircus]] (1997–2022)) and 1080 papers were considered in detail. Throughout the study period, there was a clear progressive increase in numbers of papers published. The papers originated from 39 different entities, most from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (34.0%), University of Thessaly (28.0%), Agricultural University of Athens (21.2%) and Hellenic Agricultural Organization—Dimitra (13.6%). Papers were published in 318 different journals. Journals with more published papers were Small Ruminant Research and Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society. The most frequent general topic of study in the papers was health and welfare (46.7% of papers); second most frequent topic was animal products (18.6%). The papers have received 16,558 citations, i.e., οn average 15.4 citations per paper; the h-index was 56, the i10-index was 518 and the yearly citations per paper were 1.71. Papers on goats had higher impact than papers on sheep. There were 1711 individual authors, of which 728 were first or last authors. In total, 24 authors have each co-authored ≥2.5% of all papers; five authors were each first or last in that proportion of all papers. The findings have indicated that relevant research has focused on milk production and diseases of the udder of small ruminants; moreover, there was accumulation of relevant research in Greece in some establishments only. The findings of the study can be employed to initiate improved relevant research approaches in the country.

Research Impact Assessment (RIA) represents one of a suite of policies intended to improve the impact generated from investment in health and medical research (HMR). Positivist indicator-based approaches to RIA are widely implemented but increasingly criticised as theoretically problematic, unfair, and burdensome. This commentary proposes there are useful outcomes that emerge from the process of applying an indicator-based RIA framework, separate from those encapsulated in the metrics themselves. The aim for this commentary is to demonstrate how the act of conducting an indicator-based approach to RIA can serve to optimise the productive gains from the investment in HMR. Prior research found that the issues regarding RIA are less about the choice of indicators/metrics, and more about the discussions prompted and activities incentivised by the process. This insight provides an opportunity to utilise indicator-based methods to purposely optimise the research impact. An indicator-based RIA framework specifically designed to optimise research impacts should: focus on researchers and the research process, rather than institution-level measures; utilise a project level unit of analysis that provides control to researchers and supports collaboration and accountability; provide for prospective implementation of RIA and the prospective orientation of research; establish a line of sight to the ultimate anticipated beneficiaries and impacts; Include process metrics/indicators to acknowledge interim steps on the pathway to final impacts; integrate 'next' users and prioritise the utilisation of research outputs as a critical measure; Integrate and align the incentives for researchers/research projects arising from RIA, with those existing within the prevailing research system; integrate with existing peer-review processes; and, adopt a system-wide approach where incremental improvements in the probability of translation from individual research projects, yields higher impact across the whole funding portfolio. Optimisation of the impacts from HMR investment represents the primary purpose of Research Impact policy. The process of conducting an indicator-based approach to RIA, which engages the researcher during the inception and planning phase, can directly contribute to this goal through improvements in the probability that an individual project will generate interim impacts. The research project funding process represents a promising forum to integrate this approach within the existing research system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is open peer review? Could we use it in the humanities, in one form or another? More generally, how can the principles of open science interact with research assessment practices in the humanities? These issues were discussed in a round table that was held at the University of Milan on October 25, 2023. The notes included in this section present some of the reflections that were shared on that occasion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Performance-based research policies and programmes have fundamentally altered both organisational and individual behaviours and expectations, putting immense pressure on researchers. The soundness of research, originality, valorisation potential, and societal and economic impacts are highly valued and expected characteristics of research. Yet, our understanding of the effects of various systemic and organisational factors on research performance is limited. In an exploratory, single-country case, this paper aimed to develop and examine different models of research performance as perceived by researchers themselves using a large cross-disciplinary sample of 553 researchers from 72 public research organisations in Romania. A pre-tested questionnaire was self-administered online, comprising seven scales: (1) recruitment and selection, (2) research recognition and value, (3) participation in research projects and teams, (4) work incentives, (5) job payment and salary, (6) career development opportunities, and (7) leadership effectiveness. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian estimators were used to test three structural models: (M1) mono-factor; (M2) intercorrelated dimensions, and (M3) the dimensions are indicators of a general construct. Additionally, a path analysis was carried out to study the relationships among the dimensions. We found that M2 and M3 fit the empirical data better. The results showed that career development programmes and opportunities gain centrality in achieving research performance by directly influencing participation and research projects and teams and mediating the effect of job payment. Revealingly, powerful work incentives within research organisations are international mobilities or appreciation awards. When informing evidence-based policies, the models we propose could serve the goal of improving research performance through talent development as the main proxy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Charities investing on rare disease research greatly contribute to generate ground-breaking knowledge with the clear goal of finding a cure for their condition of interest. Although the amount of their investments may be relatively small compared to major funders, the advocacy groups' clear mission promotes innovative research and aggregates highly motivated and mission-oriented scientists. Here, we illustrate the case of Fondazione italiana di ricerca per la Sclerosi Laterale Amiotrofica (AriSLA), the main Italian funding agency entirely dedicated to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis research. An international benchmark analysis of publications derived from AriSLA-funded projects indicated that their mean relative citation ratio values (iCite dashboard, National Institutes of Health, U.S.) were very high, suggesting a strong influence on the referring international scientific community. An interesting trend of research toward translation based on the “triangle of biomedicine” and paper citations (iCite) was also observed. Qualitative analysis on researchers' accomplishments was convergent with the bibliometric data, indicating a high level of performance of several working groups, lines of research that speak of progression toward clinical translation, and one study that has progressed from the investigation of cellular mechanisms to a Phase 2 international clinical trial. The key elements of the success of the AriSLA investment lie in: (i) the clear definition of the objectives (research with potential impact on patients, no matter how far), (ii) a rigorous peer-review process entrusted to an international panel of experts, (iii) diversification of the portfolio with ad hoc selection criteria, which also contributed to bringing new experts and younger scientists to the field, and (iv) a close interaction of AriSLA stakeholders with scientists, who developed a strong sense of belonging. Periodic review of the portfolio of investments is a vital practice for funding agencies. Sharing information between funding agencies about their own policies and research assessment methods and outcomes help guide the international debate on funding strategies and research directions to be undertaken, particularly in the field of rare diseases, where synergy is a relevant enabling factor.

In writing scientific papers, proper citation and referencing are crucial and thereby should be taught to graduate students and novice researchers as tools for counteracting the pervasive errors in citing, quoting, and referencing. Although the relevance of citation counts and derived indicators such as the h-index in assessing research performance is out of question, this emphasis has resulted in an “impact or perish” culture featuring post-production misrepresentation and related misbehaviors. Herein, I appraise the use of citations in academic assessment, citations in original vs. review articles, convenience and country of origin biases, and some related issues. The current landscape highlights that formal instruction on citation practices and their implications should be included in graduate programs and enduringly reinforced by mentors in laboratories.

The commercial control of academic publishing and research infrastructure by a few oligopolistic companies has crippled the development of the open access movement and interfered with the ethical principles of informa)tion access and privacy. In recent years, vertical integration of publishers and other service providers throughout the research cycle has led to plat)formisation, characterised by datafication and commodification similar to the practices on social media platforms. Scholarly publications are treated as user-generated contents for data tracking and surveillance, resulting in profitable data products and services for research assessment, benchmark)ing and reporting. Meanwhile, the bibliodiversity and equal open access are denied by the dominant gold open access model and the privacy of researchers is being compromised by spyware embedded in research infra)structure. This article proposes four actions to challenge the platformisation of scholarly information after a brief overview of the market of academic journals and research assessments and their implications for bibliodiversity, information access, and privacy: (1) Educate researchers about commercial publishers and APCs; (2) Allocate library budget to support scholar-led and library publishing; (3) Engage in the development of public research infra)structures and copyright reform; and (4) Advocate for research assessment reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the perspective of the architecture departments in nine German technical universities, this essay argues that the positioning of architecture as a research discipline requires adapted evaluation standards to fulfil its promise of generating new knowledge. Evaluation processes depend on and also influence their funding context, plus they are strongly linked to a categorisation of research practices and topics. The essay argues for widespread recognition of discipline-specific research methods, as well as specific outputs and publication practices. It provides empirical evidence of new European standards for peer-reviewed assessment of architectural research in line with subject-specific approaches. Suggestions are made for opening up excellence funding lines to design-oriented and practice-based research. The essay thus calls for researchers, universities, and associations to work together to improve evaluation and funding frameworks. It proposes that measures to strengthen the quality of architectural research in Germany can thus be of interest to a wider European academic community. The essay's conclusions support the goal of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (COARA) to maximise the excellence and impact of research by reforming assessment practices across all disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of JLIS.it: Italian Journal of Library, Archives & Information Science is the property of Firenze University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Retractions are among the effective measures to strengthen the self-correction of science and the quality of the literature. When it comes to self-retractions for honest errors, exposing one's own failures is not a trivial matter for researchers. However, self-correcting data, results and/or conclusions has increasingly been perceived as a good research practice, although rewarding such practice challenges traditional models of research assessment. In this context, it is timely to investigate who have self-retracted for honest error in terms of country, field, and gender. We show results on these three factors, focusing on gender, as data are scarce on the representation of female scientists in efforts to set the research record straight. We collected 3,822 retraction records, including research articles, review papers, meta-analyses, and letters under the category “error” from the Retraction Watch Database for the 2010–2021 period. We screened the dataset collected for research articles (2,906) and then excluded retractions by publishers, editors, or third parties, and those mentioning any investigation issues. We analyzed the content of each retraction manually to include only those indicating that they were requested by authors and attributed solely to unintended mistakes. We categorized the records according to country, field, and gender, after selecting research articles with a sole corresponding author. Gender was predicted using Genderize, at a 90% probability threshold for the final sample (n = 281). Our results show that female scientists account for 25% of self-retractions for honest error, with the highest share for women affiliated with US institutions.

Purpose – Despite the general recommendation of using a combination of multiple criteria for research assessment and faculty promotion decisions, the raise of quantitative indicators is generating an emerging trend in Business Schools to use single journal impact factors (IFs) as key (unique) drivers for those relevant school decisions. This paper aims to investigate the effects of using single Web of Science (WoS)-based journal impact metrics when assessing research from two related disciplines: Business and Economics, and its potential impact for the strategic sustainability of a Business School. Design/methodology/approach – This study collected impact indicators data for Business and Economics journals from the Clarivate Web of Science database. We concentrated on the IF indicators, the Eigenfactor and the article influence score (AIS). This study examined the correlations between these indicators and then ranked disciplines and journals using these different impact metrics. Findings – Consistent with previous findings, this study finds positive correlations among these metrics. Then this study ranks the disciplines and journals using each impact metric, finding relevant and substantial differences, depending on the metric used. It is found that using AIS instead of the IF raises the relative ranking of Economics, while Business remains basically with the same rank. Research limitations/implications – This study contributes to the research assessment literature by adding substantial evidence that given the sensitivity of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and too simplistic. This research shows that biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and traditions. Practical implications – Consistent with the literature, given the sensibility of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research, assigning research funds and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and simplistic. However, this research shows that risks and biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and trajectories. The use of multiple criteria is advised for such purposes. Originality/value – This is an applied work using real data from WoS that addresses a practical case of comparing the use of different journal IFs to rank-related disciplines like Business and Economics, with important implications for faculty tenure and promotion committees and for research funds granting institutions and decision-makers.

Background: There is an increasing desire for research to provide solutions to the grand challenges facing our global society, such as those expressed in the UN SDGs (“real-world impact”). Herein, we undertook an author survey to understand how this desire influenced the choice of research topic, choice of journal, and preferred type of impact. Methods: We conducted a survey of authors who had published in >100 of our Earth & Environmental Science journals. The survey was sent to just under 60,000 authors and we received 2,695 responses (4% response rate). Results: Respondents indicated that the majority of their research (74%) is currently concerned with addressing urgent global needs, whilst 90% of respondents indicated that their work either currently contributed to meeting real-world problems or that it would be a priority for them in the future; however, the impetus for this research focus seems to be altruistic researcher desire, rather than incentives or support from publishers, funders, or their institutions. Indeed, when contextualised within existing reward and incentive structures, respondents indicated that citations or downloads were more important to them than contributing to tackling real-world problems. Conclusions: At present, it seems that the laudable and necessary ambition of researchers in the Earth & Environmental Sciences to contribute to the tackling of real-world problems, such as those included in the UN SDGs, is seemingly being lost amidst the realities of being a researcher, owing to the prioritisation of other forms of impact, such as citations and downloads.

Data reuse is a common practice in the social sciences. While published data play an essential role in the production of social science research, they are not consistently cited, which makes it difficult to assess their full scholarly impact and give credit to the original data producers. Furthermore, it can be challenging to understand researchers’ motivations for referencing data. Like references to academic literature, data references perform various rhetorical functions, such as paying homage, signaling disagreement, or drawing comparisons. This paper studies how and why researchers reference social science data in their academic writing. We develop a typology to model relationships between the entities that anchor data references, along with their features (access, actions, locations, styles, types) and functions (critique, describe, illustrate, interact, legitimize). We illustrate the use of the typology by coding multidisciplinary research articles (n = 30) referencing social science data archived at the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). We show how our typology captures researchers’ interactions with data and purposes for referencing data. Our typology provides a systematic way to document and analyze researchers’ narratives about data use, extending our ability to give credit to data that support research.