Search

A number of indications, such as the number of Nobel Prize winners, show Japan to be a scientifically advanced country. However, standard bibliometric indicators place Japan as a scientifically developing country. The present study is based on the conjecture that Japan is an extreme case of a general pattern in highly industrialized countries. In these countries, scientific publications come from two types of studies: some pursue the advancement of science and produce highly cited publications, while others pursue incremental progress and their publications have a very low probability of being highly cited. Although these two categories of papers cannot be easily identified and separated, the scientific level of Japan can be tested by studying the extreme upper tail of the citation distribution of all scientific articles. In contrast to standard bibliometric indicators, which are calculated from the total number of papers or from sets of papers in which the two categories of papers are mixed, in the extreme upper tail, only papers that are addressed to the advance of science will be present. Based on the extreme upper tail, Japan belongs to the group of scientifically advanced countries and is significantly different from countries with a low scientific level. The number of Clarivate Citation laureates also supports our hypothesis that some citation-based metrics do not reveal the high scientific level of Japan. Our findings suggest that Japan is an extreme case of inaccuracy of some citation metrics; the same drawback might affect other countries, although to a lesser degree. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Internationally, there has been a push for the prioritisation of research impact beyond its scholarly contribution. Traditionally, research impact assessments have focused on academic impact and quantitative measures, at the expense of researchers for whom research impact cannot be quantified. Bibliometric indicators and other quantitative measures are still the most widely used method for evaluating research impact because these measures are easy to use and provide a quick solution for evaluators. Conversely, metric indicators fail to capture important dimensions of high-quality research. Hence, in this study, we explored challenges with metric indicators. We adopted a case study of the University of Cape Town and used document analysis, a questionnaire survey to collect data from academics and researchers, as well as semi-structured interviews with a sample of academic and research staff. The findings highlight common challenges with quantitative measures, such as bias and discipline coverage, and the ability of measures to drive researchers' behaviour in another direction. We propose the adoption of responsible research metrics and assessment in South African higher education institutions for more inclusive and equitable research impact assessments. [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]

There are currently broad moves to reform research assessment, especially to better incentivize open and responsible research and avoid problematic use of inappropriate quantitative indicators. This study adds to the evidence base for such decision-making by investigating researcher perceptions of current processes of research assessment in institutional review, promotion, and tenure processes. Analysis of an international survey of 198 respondents reveals a disjunct between personal beliefs and perceived institutional priorities ('value dissonance'), with practices of open and responsible research, as well as 'research citizenship' comparatively poorly valued by institutions at present. Our findings hence support current moves to reform research assessment. But we also add crucial nuance to the debate by discussing the relative weighting of open and responsible practices and suggesting that fostering research citizenship activities like collegiality and mentorship may be an important way to rebalance criteria towards environments, which better foster quality, openness, and responsibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Assess whether ChatGPT 4.0 is accurate enough to perform research evaluations on journal articles to automate this time-consuming task.

This study decomposes country-specific deviations in the share of Conference Papers (CPs) in national research output from the global average into two components: disciplinary and institutional shifts. This approach helps explain the high proportion of CPs in certain countries, where the disciplinary structure of national science justifies such deviations. We propose that the main drivers of institutional shifts include national science policy, particularly performance assessment systems; a high proportion of early-career researchers due to rapid expansion of the research sector; and the prevalence of home conferences, influenced by favorable geographical locations or political preferences. We observed an abnormally low institutional shift in Iran, which has long been under international sanctions, and an extremely high shift in Indonesia, where the rapid development of the scientific sector leads to a high proportion of first-time authors and relaxed scientific ethics requirements. The impact of excessive publication pressure is also evident in post-Soviet countries undergoing transformations in their scientific systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Internationally, there has been a push for the prioritisation of research impact beyond its scholarly contribution. Traditionally, research impact assessments have focused on academic impact and quantitative measures, at the expense of researchers for whom research impact cannot be quantified. Bibliometric indicators and other quantitative measures are still the most widely used method for evaluating research impact because these measures are easy to use and provide a quick solution for evaluators. Conversely, metric indicators fail to capture important dimensions of high-quality research. Hence, in this study, we explored challenges with metric indicators. We adopted a case study of the University of Cape Town and used document analysis, a questionnaire survey to collect data from academics and researchers, as well as semi-structured interviews with a sample of academic and research staff. The findings highlight common challenges with quantitative measures, such as bias and discipline coverage, and the ability of measures to drive researchers’ behaviour in another direction. We propose the adoption of responsible research metrics and assessment in South African higher education institutions for more inclusive and equitable research impact assessments. Significance: • The study highlights the importance of understanding the challenges and influence of current measures used for assessing research impact in higher education institutions. • There is a need for higher education leaders, policymakers and funders to advocate and support responsible metrics. • Higher education leaders, funders and policymakers need to collaborate at the national level to initiate and support research assessment reform.

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.

Abstract 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.

* Background Over the past decade, calls for research assessment reform have grown, led by initiatives such as the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the Leiden Manifesto, and, more recently, the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). A key element being discussed as part of research assessment reform is a shift towards more qualitative assessments, focussed on the content of research and the broad skills and competencies of researchers, and the array of contributions they make to knowledge creation and innovation. Narrative CV formats have emerged as a good practice example for enabling qualitative assessments of research projects and researchers, and are becoming more widely piloted and implemented. Methods As part of the 2023 Dutch Recognition and Rewards Festival, the authors hosted a workshop to gather perspectives on Narrative CVs, including whether and how they may contribute to shifts in research culture that are needed to support research assessment reform. Results Participants, representing research organisations and the research community, discussed both beneficial and critical aspects of narrative-style CV implementations from their experiences. The effects observed since narrative CVs have been implemented were discussed, with perspectives provided on career prospects and the empowerment of the research community to direct change. Finally, the discussion turned to expectations for the future, with workshop participants calling for focus on the roles that narrative-style CVs can play in improving research careers, recognition of collaborative work, and equality, diversity, and inclusion. A short informal survey exploring levels of implementation of narrative CVs across different research organisations was run prior to the workshop, the results of which are also presented as part of this report. Discussion The authors intend to expand this discussion to other scientific and policy conferences, and this report serves as a basis for a wider and deeper dialogue in the community.

This paper is based on a presentation from a panel discussion on Innovation, Technology and Infrastructure at the 2023 APE Conference. It provides an overview of the use, misuse and value of bibliometrics in research assessment, examines the responsible use of metrics and the importance of going beyond existing bibliometric indicators of scholarly impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper summarizes the 18th Academic Publishing in Europe (APE) Conference: Berlin Re-Visited: Building Technological Support for Scholarship and Scientific Publishing, held as a hybrid event 10 and 11 January 2023, and organized by the Berlin Institute of Scholarly Publishing (BISP), a not-for-profit organization dedicated to bringing publishers, researchers, funders, and policymakers together. This year's conference theme "Out with the old, in with the new!" was discussed and presented in keynote speeches, the APE lecture, and several panel discussions. Current challenges within scholarly publishing, e.g., with research integrity, trust, and research assessment, have much to do with the old ways of doing things. To move science forward, new technologies and innovations, like the decentralized web, FAIR digital objects, and blockchain technology are needed to shape new paradigms. In many sessions it was stressed that not just new technologies are needed to move science forward, but human collaboration and partnerships as well. The changing role of the journal and the importance to recognize more diverse research outputs, beyond the journal article, was a topic of importance. Not only research assessment reforms and improved collaboration amongst different stakeholder groups are needed to address this, new publishing systems, better metadata, and open infrastructures as well. A session presenting different start-ups showcased how Artificial Intelligence, Natural Language Processing and software technology can be used to tackle problems in e.g., finding relevant funders and peer reviewers, and detecting image plagiarism. It was also discussed what publishers can do to help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Collaboration, data transparency and sharing best practices amongst researchers, funders, and policy makers are key. Another important topic during this year's APE was how publishers can support Early Career Researchers: establishing new workflows and infrastructures that enable publication of a wider range of research outputs, and broader recognition of these outputs, will incentivize ECRs. This year's APE was concluded with the APE Award Ceremony. The winner - Vsevolod Solovyov from Prophy - has used AI to enhance the current peer review system and made a very important contribution to improving the scholarly communication system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Research Excellence Framework (REF) follows a set of submission rules. Here we analyse whether the submission rules of the impact element arguably shaped the submission sizes of the submitting units – a group of academics researching on a specific subject area in higher education providers – to the REF in 2014. The number of impact case studies required was determined by the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff members submitted by the unit. We argue that units that did not have an extra impact case study or units' perception of lower quality of additional impact case study made some units to lower their submission sizes. We show that there were proportionately more submissions with a size just below the threshold FTE – a threshold used to identify the numbers of impact case studies – than those just above the threshold, suggesting that some units arguably decreased their size to return fewer impact studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used and widely misused for research assessments. Some metrics have acquired major importance in shaping and rewarding the careers of millions of scientists. Given their perceived prestige, they may be widely gamed in the current "publish or perish" or "get cited or perish" environment. This review examines several gaming practices, including authorship-based, citation-based, editorial-based, and journal-based gaming as well as gaming with outright fabrication. Different patterns are discussed, including massive authorship of papers without meriting credit (gift authorship), team work with over-attribution of authorship to too many people (salami slicing of credit), massive self-citations, citation farms, H-index gaming, journalistic (editorial) nepotism, journal impact factor gaming, paper mills and spurious content papers, and spurious massive publications for studies with demanding designs. For all of those gaming practices, quantitative metrics and analyses may be able to help in their detection and in placing them into perspective. A portfolio of quantitative metrics may also include indicators of best research practices (e.g., data sharing, code sharing, protocol registration, and replications) and poor research practices (e.g., signs of image manipulation). Rigorous, reproducible, transparent quantitative metrics that also inform about gaming may strengthen the legacy and practices of quantitative appraisals of scientific work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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.

Abstract 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.

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]

Following academic globalization, successful integration into the international research community is a fundamental interest for all participating countries. The success of these internationalization processes, however, are often under scrutiny, and the results are rarely unequivocal. This holds true for Central and Eastern Europe, which usually is described as a semiperipheral region of global knowledge production. Analyzing the publication and citation indices of 365 Hungarian social scientists in one national (Hungarian Scientific Bibliography) and two global (Scopus, Google Scholar) databases, we explicate the current international impact of Hungarian academic research while exploring pivotal factors behind the major differences between databases. Our results indicate that Hungarian scholars lag behind their peers in neighboring countries, necessitating effective policy measures. To this end, the analysis recommends the use of standardized global publication databases instead of national datasets, while still acknowledging the shortcomings of the latter in research assessment protocols. [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 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]

This paper investigates how the emotional responses towards research assessment reflect both social position and strategy in the struggle for scientific authority. This is examined through interviews with humanities researchers conducted as a part of a study on the implications for research practice of the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator (BFI). Drawing on Bourdieu's theory of practice and Scheer and Matthäus' conceptualisation of the affective habitus and emotional practices, our research suggests that emotions can be conceptualized as strategic practices closely tied to the hierarchical position of the researchers. Established researchers deployed emotional practices as a form of resistance against compliance-based research assessment to retain their scientific authority and autonomy, while early-career researchers generally wanted to resist but their precarious positions did not afford them the possibility to do so. The study thus highlights the potential of studying emotions in relation to resistance and reproduction of dominance in higher education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assessment remains a source of contention within the education community. Inconsistency through contradictory evaluation techniques used by different practitioners makes assessments unreliable. This article reflects on my experience examining research dissertations as a novice academic at a university of technology in South Africa. The main objectives of the current reflective study are to improve my assessment practices by critiquing a dissertation examination tool and to highlight the marking principles to be considered when examining student submissions. I reviewed six dissertations from students busy studying towards their Bachelor of Technology degrees. The reflection was underpinned by Gibb's reflective theory which presents a reflection cycle for the learner who is also the one reflecting. Several themes emerged from my deliberation including the need to enhance the assessment tool, a call for consistency and reliability, and overcoming challenges. from this exercise, the following action plan was developed: continual refinement of assessment tools to develop a rubric; training, development and mentorship for novice assessors; and peer collaboration. By taking these actions, the assessment process for dissertations has the potential to not only benefit the assessors but also the students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What happened when eLife decided to eliminate accept/reject decisions after peer review?

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge in scientific publications, some of which have bypassed the usual peer-review processes, leading to an increase in unsupported claims being referenced. Therefore, the need for references in scientific articles is increasingly being questioned. The practice of relying solely on quantitative measures, such as impact factor, is also considered inadequate by many experts. This can lead to researchers choosing research ideas that are likely to generate favourable metrics instead of interesting and important topics. Evaluating the quality and scientific value of articles requires a rethinking of current approaches, with a move away from purely quantitative methods.

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.

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.

In recent years, the changing landscape for the conduct and assessment of research and of researchers has increased scrutiny of the reward systems of science. In this context, correcting the research record, including retractions, has gained attention and space in the publication system. One question is the possible influence of retractions on the careers of scientists. It might be assessed, for example, through citation patterns or productivity rates for authors who have had one or more retractions. This is an emerging issue today, with growing discussions in the research community about impact. We have explored the influence of retractions on grant review criteria. Here, we present results of a qualitative study exploring the views of a group of six representatives of funding agencies from different countries and of a follow-up survey of 224 reviewers in the US. These reviewers have served on panels for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and/or a few other agencies. We collected their perceptions about the influence of self-correction of the literature and of retractions on grant decisions. Our results suggest that correcting the research record, for honest error or misconduct, is perceived as an important mechanism to strengthen the reliability of science, among most respondents. However, retractions and self-correcting the literature at large are not factors influencing grant review, and dealing with retractions in reviewing grants is an open question for funders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Financial accounting, the core of corporate reporting, is often characterized as the 'language of business'. Over the last roughly 100 years, and using an evolving set of theories, methods, and data, scholarly work in this area has been contributing to our understanding of this language and how to improve it. This paper seeks, first, to characterize the field with a focus on its evolution in the German-speaking area, where, like elsewhere, normative research traditions interested in improving practice have been making way for positivist approaches that seek a detached understanding of 'what is.' Second, we discuss the changing users and institutional parameters that are reshaping corporate reporting, followed by our personal view of 'wicked' societal problems and challenges that corporate reporting might be able to help alleviate. Finally, we discuss directions in which research might evolve in order to address these issues, in order to make corporate reporting more useful for serving not only economic actors, but also society and the environment more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic culture now places high expectations on researchers to demonstrate research productivity alongside teaching, leadership and knowledge exchange. In two studies of researchers across career stages in UK higher education institutions (HEIs), we examined workplace climate within academic departments as (1) supportive of researchers' needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, (2) publish‐or‐perish focused and (3) hyper‐competitive. In Study 1 (multiwave from 2018 to 2020), need support predicted researchers' lower turnover intention 2 years later, even when controlling for concurrent need support, and career and economic conditions. In Study 2, need support correlated with academic well‐being (lower job strain and turnover intention, greater job satisfaction) in a nationwide sample of 2951 researchers. Study 2 found that need support related to improved, and a hyper‐competitive motivational climate related to undermined, well‐being. Results were mixed for publish‐or‐perish climate. Performative demands can have deleterious effects on researcher well‐being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little attention has been devoted to whether the impact factor (IF) can be considered a responsible metric in light of bibliodiversity. This article critically engages with this question in measuring the following variables of IF journals included in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports™ and examining their distribution: publishing models (hybrid, open access (OA) with or without fees, subscription), world regions, language(s) of publication, subject categories, publishers and the prices of article processing charges (APCs) if any. Our results show that the quest for prestige or perceived quality through the IF brand poses serious threats to bibliodiversity. The IF brand can indeed hardly be considered a responsible metric insofar as it perpetuates publishing concentration, maintains a domination of the Global North and its attendant artificial image of mega producer of scholarly content, does not promote linguistic diversity, and does not incentivize fair and equitable open access by entrenching fee-based OA delivery options with rather high APCs.

The academic research assessment system, the academic reward system, and the academic publishing system are interrelated mechanisms that facilitate the scholarly production of knowledge. This article considers these systems using a Foucauldian lens to examine the power/knowledge relationships found within and through these systems. A brief description of the various systems is introduced followed by examples of instances where Foucault's power, knowledge, discourse, and power/knowledge concepts are useful to provide a broader understanding of the norms and rules associated with each system, how these systems form a network of power relationships that reinforce and shape one another.

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.

The commercial control of academic publishing and research infrastructure by a few oligopolistic companies has crippled the development of open access movement and interfered with the ethical principles of information access and privacy. In recent years, vertical integration of publishers and other service providers throughout the research cycle has led to platformisation, characterized by datafication and commodification similar to 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, benchmarking 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 infrastructure. This article proposes four actions to fight 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 infrastructures and copyright reform; and (4) Advocate for research assessment reforms.

Although ex post evaluation of impact is increasingly common, the extent to which research impacts emerge largely as anticipated by researchers, or as the result of serendipitous and unpredictable processes, is not well understood. In this article, we explore whether predictions of impact made at the funding stage align with realized impact, using data from the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF). We exploit REF impact cases traced back to research funding applications, as a dataset of 2,194 case–grant pairs, to compare impact topics with funder remits. For 209 of those pairs, we directly compare their descriptions of ex ante and ex post impact. We find that impact claims in these case–grant pairs are often congruent with each other, with 76% showing alignment between anticipated impact at funding stage and the eventual claimed impact in the REF. Co-production of research, often perceived as a model for impactful research, was a feature of just over half of our cases. Our results show that, contrary to other preliminary studies of the REF, impact appears to be broadly predictable, although unpredictability remains important. We suggest that co-production is a reasonably good mechanism for addressing the balance of predictable and unpredictable impact outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Archivio Giuridico is the property of Mucchi Editore 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 aims of this research is to evaluate the literature on Environmentalism indexed on the Web of Science between 1941 to 2020. The analysis is based on bibliometric methods to evaluate global research performance in environmental publications. Bibliometric software, namely Bibexcel, VOSviewer, Biblioshiny, and Microsoft Excel, was used to analyze the data. The result shows 4095 publications with 73829 citations between 1941 and 2020. The maximum number of papers, i.e., 295 published in 2020. The Journal Environmental Politics published the highest research paper with 114 publications. Milfont TL was the most prolific author with 10 papers. The USA is the leading contributed country with 1620 publications, and Michigan State University emerged as a top-performing organization. The USA and China together collaborated maximum research paper on Environmentalism. The study concludes that there is a need for further bibliometric study of related topics in Environmentalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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.

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.

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.