1. Ahead of the Game - How impact is an additional hurdle for scholars from widening countries to receiving EU funding.
The next round of the EU's research and innovation funding program, Horizon Europe, will include a requirement to develop a mission statement outlining how the research will achieve societal impact. In their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Stefan de Jong and Reetta Muhonen explore how regional variations across Europe in the understanding of research impact are likely to impact the opportunities of researchers from widening participation countries in securing EU funding.
The blog post says (quote): The first explanation can be found in national policy spheres. Over the past two decades, scholars in Experienced Countries, such as the Netherlands, the UK and Spain have experienced the introduction of impact policies at the national level. Not only were they incentivised to develop impact practices, they also expect them to have learned how to document their (potential) impacts. The second explanation is rooted in differences in social capital between societies. In many Widening Countries low levels of trust in formal organisations, as well as low levels of involvement with civic society are common. Hence, there is less of a tradition of establishing links with organisations outside trusted informal circles, than in for example the Nordic countries and the Netherlands. These differences were clearly reflected in their impact reports………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Is Hybrid a Valid Pathway to Open Access? Publishers Argue Yes, in Response to Plan S
Feedback from the larger publishers on the Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S reflects many of the themes seen in the feedback overall, including support for open access and concern for diversity and inclusion in publishing. Awaiting the next communication from Coalition S, the largest publishers indicate that they will not abandon the hybrid pathway for open access, discusses Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Echoing the STM association feedback on the compliance guidance, the publishers clearly dissent from Plan S's assertion that "there is no valid reason to maintain any kind of subscription-based business model for scientific publishing in the digital world." Publishers observe that hybrid is bringing about a transition to open access, though that transition may be slower than some would like. Article-by-article APC fees, mirror and sister journals, read and publish agreements, and publish and read agreements - these are all hybrid models under which scholarship is currently and increasingly made open access. Hybrid meets the market demand for open access publishing, particularly in Europe, while also meeting the market demand for no-fee publishing from other regions of the world. It is also a responsive model because it can adjust easily to accommodate expanding demand for open access publishing without forcing it on others………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Pre-treatment, group consensus peer review – preventing instead of mitigating errors
Peer review in the clinical environment is not that different from that used in the review of published literature. W. Neil Duggar, in his post in the BMC On Medicine Blog, discusses how peer review can be applied clinically in the field of radiation oncology, and what barriers need to be overcome to implement successful peer review in a clinical setting.
The blog post says (quote): Perhaps the primary difference is that with literature, plagiarism is a concern for reviewers, whereas peer review in the clinical environment would look for treatment plan designs to closely resemble the known standard of care and current evidence. Increasing the number of trained judgments that a clinical decision is appropriate and optimal has been recognised for its value and is difficult to dispute. The unique approach in the clinic is the utility of a pre-treatment timepoint and group consensus review. Peer review is not infallible, but for the instances when errors are caught, if no treatment has yet been delivered, then the error can be proactively corrected before treatment, rather than only mitigated. The value of the group-consensus approach is that a higher volume of trained expertise is used during plan review and can include both clinical and technical concerns for the quality of the plan………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Move clinical trial data sharing from an option to an imperative
Data from clinical trials have long been locked away, some in this principal investigator's computer bank, some in that pharmaceutical company's cloud. For years they have been talking about opening up those vaults and freeing these data. The key has finally turned: Data sharing is becoming the new reality, notes Rebecca Li, in her post in the STAT Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Clinical trials are becoming increasingly complex, costly, and time-consuming. Competition among researchers, whether they are in the biopharma industry or in academia, is fiercer than ever. But there are rewards for sharing data. There are also rewards for the researchers who share data. Those who share data receive more citations from other researchers. It's a reward system that builds on itself: As the number of papers that reuse a data set grows, the more citations a researcher receives. This takes on even more significance with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors requirements, as editors have indicated they "may take into consideration data sharing statements when making editorial decisions." What's more, a growing number of funders - from government to philanthropy - require grantees to share data. With more grants and more publications can come the golden prize of tenure for academics………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply