Scientific publishing has become a game between scientists and journals. Scientists try to convince the journals to publish their papers, while journals try to filter-out low-quality papers while being overwhelmed with too many submissions. Is there a smarter way? Honest signaling may be the key.
We know that academic knowledge production happens in context, yet, when assessing research, we undervalue the influence of stakeholders and organizational contexts on academic output and impact. The second of four blogposts is on evaluating research in context.
As the A-TEAM, we thoroughly evaluate the data we collect, and aim to provide a consistent and transparent curation. What we do could also be described as that of a detective/archeologist/archivist: through bits and pieces of data we seek to unravel the scientific landscape.
Could coronavirus-related research (CRR) pre-Covid-19 have been otherwise? In this series we examine pre-pandemic publications in CRR, asking how issues of careers, funding, and geopolitics may have affected the state of knowledge in CRR. Ep.1: Careers.
Every day news outlets around the world play a central role in disseminating the latest COVID-19 research. In this post, we discuss the impact of COVID-19 findings on the news by applying state-of-the-art sentiment analysis and present some interesting preliminary results, stay tuned!
A trend in research evaluation is to include stakeholders as active partners in the evaluation process. In June, CWTS organized an online workshop to explore novel evaluation approaches and to identify possibilities and limitations for co-production in research evaluation.