1. How best to fund knowledgebases – an author and reviewer in conversation
A recent Research Article published by Chiara Gabella explored how best to fund knowledgebases, which are relied on by many life scientists as highly accurate and reliable sources of scientific information. This post in the F1000Research Blog by Shane Canning is based on a conversation between the author and reviewer discussing how knowledgebases support scientists and explore funding models.
The blog post says (quote): Knowledgebases, UniProtKB included, are currently mainly funded by two of the models presented in the paper: institutional funding and research grants. Institutional funding allows a relative stability in time. Both models are compliant with the open access principles and allow equity of users. These models cannot guarantee the long-term sustainability of data resources. The Infrastructure Model that we propose, brings together the positive aspects of those two models: data resources still receive funds from funding agencies, but not as cyclic grants in competition with research projects. This model guarantees stable funding and is scalable with the amount of research data that is generated in a certain activity domain………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. The creative elements of engagement mean that using metrics to measure impact is not always possible
Engagement activities are often noted to create clear, descriptive pathways to impact. However, the lack of standardised metrics and measures means the monitoring and evaluation of engagement activities remains difficult. In their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Sarah Evans and Clare Deane encourage researchers to think creatively about how to measure engagement; by considering outcomes as well as outputs, ensuring indicators are truly relevant to the audience, and understanding how to properly demonstrate attribution.
The blog post says (quote): Researchers often want metrics that can enable them to evaluate engagement and impact quickly and easily for REF2021. And that's quite an unremarkable request. Successful REF impact case studies evidenced the benefits of their engagement fully. They used robust measures which told their story or theory of change. Yet monitoring and evaluation is not an easy task and the creative elements of engagement mean that using standardised metrics to measure impact is not always possible. This is because the REF is broadly defined and quantitative data and indicators are highly specific to the type of impact concerned. The route of engagement to impactful research also undoubtedly varies according to academic discipline………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Stage Two Disruption in Scholarly Communications
Popular opinion to the contrary, scholarly publishing has not been disrupted. But only superior management can navigate the many challenges ahead, discusses Joseph Esposito, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): It is arguable, however, that Stage One never happened and that the Internet has in fact been a gift to STM publishers. Let's not be misunderstood on this point: media industries everywhere have been disrupted by the Internet. Think of music (how many times has Napster been used as an iconic illustration?), newspapers, magazines, books, and, of course, cable TV (Netflix, anyone?). What is remarkable is that the Internet has been very good for STM publishing (though not necessarily for each individual publisher), which has grown enormously over the last 20 years. So that first disruption, where scholarly communications was just roadkill on the way toward a fully digital world, never really happened the way many said it did………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Patient peer review for the Research Involvement and Engagement journal
Research Involvement and Engagement involves academics, policy makers, patients and service users, with a unique governance structure. The journal invites articles from anyone involved or engaged with research into supporting, encouraging or delivering the patient and public voice in research processes or structures, notes Simon R. Stones, in his post in the BioMed Central Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Assuring the validity and coherence of submissions to this journal and their published findings is dependent on the service and judgment of the journal’s peer reviewers, with submissions peer reviewed by both academic and patient reviewers, and their reports carrying equal weight in the editorial decisions. The journal's editors therefore invite you to join as peer reviewers willing to be invited to complete specialist peer review of submissions to the Research Involvement and Engagement journal. The journal encourages you to consider supporting this initiative, which provides an essential service to assure the quality of these research outputs. In addition to recording the role of peer reviewer for Research Involvement and Engagement on CVs, the journal can provide a branded letter to record peer review contributions on request………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply