1. Postdocs trying to transition to non-academic careers should be offered more support by their supervisors and universities
Despite the position being billed as a stepping stone on the way to tenure-track academic employment, many postdocs, discouraged by their poor prospects, are questioning their career choices and instead looking to non-academic jobs as an alternative. However, making this transition is not as easy as it might first appear, reveal Chris Hayter and Marla A. Parker, in their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The transition of postdocs to non-academic jobs is complicated by the fact that both doctoral training and postdoc positions primarily aim to prepare individuals for tenure-track academic employment. Some postdocs aren't familiar with labour market data revealing the grim chances of academic employment or, in many cases, understand their long-shot odds but choose to ignore them. Furthermore, having limited focus on their academic training, most postdocs do not possess the networks or skills that might enable them to obtain jobs and succeed in non-academic careers. Well, all postdocs have to do is network differently and gain additional skillsets that make them ready for non-academic positions, right? Not so fast. The search for non-academic employment is often discouraged or penalised (e.g. ignoring postdocs) by their supervisors. Of course, many supervisors do support the career interests of postdocs, no matter where they are placed. But supervisors themselves often lack the skills or social networks to help mentees get jobs in industry or government. Further, placing postdocs in a tenure-track academic position is a source of pride for many supervisors………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Exclusive Deals in Scholarly Discovery: How they Hurt Users and Pose Threats to Open Scholarship
Exclusive deals need to be re-thought and sharing of metadata with all platforms is critical. The future of networked research, linked data technology and other major advances in scholarly communication depends on increasingly open metadata and widespread access to all content, notes Lettie Y. Conrad, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Creating dead-ends and silos in this way undermines research and shores up illegal pathways to content, signaling ongoing threats to a truly comprehensive discovery experience for researchers within the academic library. These limitations also put libraries in the untenable position of choosing to expose some resources, but not all; to promote usage of those collections prioritised by search providers, rather than the libraries paying for both their collections and the associated discovery layer. The author finds it disappointing to hear of library cancellations due to a conscious, strategic lack of coverage by discovery services. After nearly 10 years of advocacy for fairness by the Open Discovery Initiative, they are still struggling to strike the right balances between publisher, library, and user needs. While the discovery marketplace is both diverse and in a state of flux, they strongly believe both content and search providers should get out of the way and allow libraries to make local decisions regarding the discovery and access that best fits their needs………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Peer review of methods before study's onset may benefit science
Everyone seems to be talking about how to increase the rigour, reproducibility and transparency of science. One interesting effort is registered reports, a type of journal article in which researchers submit their experimental protocol for peer review before doing the experiments, notes Lucina Q. Uddin, in her post in the Spectrum Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Registered reports entail a two-step publication process. In stage 1, researchers submit a proposed study - the equivalent of the 'introduction' and 'methods' sections of a traditional manuscript - for peer review. If the researchers reviewing the protocol deem it of high quality, the journal gives the paper a provisional acceptance - meaning it will accept the final report as long as the researchers use the registered methods. The researchers then collect, analyse and report data in accordance with the registered guidelines. In stage 2, they report their results and discussion, and the final product is published. The registered-report format also raises questions about ownership of the work, particularly for research that takes a long time to complete. The study developmental processes in clinical populations, for which data collection can take years………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. An academic's podcast gets the peer-review treatment
In the past few years, universities and scholars have turned to podcasts as a research communication and pedagogical tool. Now, a researcher at Simon Fraser University has teamed up with Wilfrid Laurier University Press to take academic podcasting a step further. In this experiment, the podcast is the research, with peer review to back it up, discusses Natalie Samson, in her post in the University Affairs Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The second round of peer review is now underway for season two and reviewers have been asked to focus more on the content of the podcast and its contributions to critical feminist theory. The team is still ironing out the details of the review process for the third and final season of the podcast, but McMenemy says it could take the form of a roundtable review. As the project starts to wind down – both the podcast and funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will come to an end in 2019 – the researchers are reflecting on what might come next. Dr. McGregor hopes to launch a network for academic podcasters, while WLU Press is keen to take on more podcasting projects in the future………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply