1. Knowledge exchange or research impact – what is the difference between REF and KEF?
The UK research system has historically been innovative in its approach to measuring and assessing the impacts of academic research. However, the recent development of the Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF), has elicited scepticism as to how this framework will significantly differ from the impact element of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). In their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Hamish McAlpine and Steven Hill outline the aims and objectives of the KEF and argue that it provides an important means of understanding the wider totality of research impacts taking place in UK universities.
The blog post says (quote): Perhaps the biggest difference between KEF and REF impact is a question of focus. REF impact is very much about outcomes, and because the case studies are selected, they represent the best and most exciting examples of impact. Although 7000 case studies were provided for REF 2014, these represent a small proportion of the total impact that the universities have. This set will inevitably also be biased towards big success stories, and will not generally include examples of smaller scale, but no less important, impacts, types of impact that Gunnar Sivertsen and Ingeborg Meijer have termed ‘normal impact’. The focus of the KEF is therefore the processes of knowledge exchange, across a wide range of activity. Some of those processes will be related to the big success stories that make up REF impact case studies. But others will lead to smaller, more diverse, but no less important impacts. Others still, will be about building the foundations – relationships and networks – on which future potential impacts will be built............(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Taiwan considers double-blind peer review for grants
Taiwan’s science ministry is thinking of introducing double-blind peer review to assess research-grant proposals, a trend being adopted by some journals to eliminate bias. If the system is adopted, reviewers and applicants will be anonymous, in an attempt to make selection fairer, notes Andrew Silver, in his post in the Nature Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Currently grant proposals include the name of the applicant, but the reviewers remain anonymous - a method known as single-blind review, which is used by many funding agencies. In a double-blind system, the identities of both the applicant and the reviewers are redacted, in an attempt to eliminate personal bias and conflicts of interest. Some journals, including Nature and Conservation Biology, have policies that allow authors to request that their names are withheld from reviewers. It will be difficult to anonymise grant applications. Authors often cite their own preliminary data or previous studies in their proposals, which would allow senior reviewers familiar with the field to guess who they are............(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Scientific evidence boosts action for activists, decreases action for scientists
According to researchers, when a proposed policy has the backing of scientific evidence, it may boost the likelihood that activists will get involved with the issue. However, references to scientific evidence seem to dampen the activism of scientific experts, notes Matt Swayne, in his post in the Penn State Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The organisation sends out emails about these issues to its 460,000 members. The email list is broken into two groups: an activists list that includes the broad membership, and an experts list, which includes scientists, engineers, health professionals and other technical experts. The organisation, in collaboration with the researchers, sent an email message to list members asking them to support a recent proposal to revise an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation on accidental spills at chemical facilities. In one message, the organisation mentioned that the revision was supported by a study from a leading health journal. A second email did not contain specific information about the scientific journal, but contained a general reference to support from peer-reviewed scientific studies. In the third condition, the email contained no reference to either the journal, or peer-reviewed studies............(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Guest Post: The Surprisingly Low Burden of Subscriptions at Institutions
The subscription model has been controversial ever since the Internet went mainstream in the late-1990s. Visions of free information permeated the culture. Analysing subscription expenditures at the institutional level suggests that for US institutions, subscriptions represent a very slight burden on university budgets, while delivering value to many stakeholders, notes Kent Anderson, in his guest post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): If subscription costs were a main driver of tuition increases and general affordability issues, one would expect them to represent a major percentage of university expenditures. Based on this sampling analysis, they are not. So why are libraries under stress if subscriptions aren’t the problem? The part of it is because the incredible growth in outputs over the past 20 years due to the entrance of China into the global scientific publishing economy, as well as organic growth in traditional markets, hasn’t been adequately appreciated by the powers that be. This stress is shared by libraries and publishers. According to the most recent "STM Report," outputs have grown at 4 percent per year while publisher revenues have only grown at 2 percent. The rapid increase in outputs has been shown to be a main driver of cost increases for libraries and publishers............(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply