1. The uneven impacts of research impact: Adjustments needed to address the imbalance of the current impact framework.
The current approach to measuring and assessing research impact favours certain kinds of academics and research topics over others. In their post in The Impact Blog, Kat Smith and Ellen Stewart outline three areas that require further consideration. Academics who are negatively impacted by the current framework might look to suggest adjustments which limit or ameliorate these effects.
The blog post says (quote): Research on both academic and policy work has highlighted the value of critical and blue skies academic work and few seem to be actively suggesting that it is desirable to restrict this kind of work. Yet, as science studies authors such as Knorr Cetina clearly demonstrate, academics work hard to develop grant applications that have the greatest chance of success and when major sources of academic funding (from the higher education councils, through REF, and UK research councils) are all stressing the importance of research impact, then we can expect that many academics will commit themselves to undertaking work that more obviously facilitates research impact, limiting applications for undertaking critical and blue skies research, a concern picked up in the RAND evaluation of the REF2014 impact system. It may also lead to unhelpful ‘fudging’ exercises, as several of our interviewees described, in which more critical researchers feel pressured to phrase policy recommendations in strategically vague ways, softening perceived criticism and (as one put it) "bend[ing] with the wind in order to get research cited".……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Peer review - do we need gradual improvements or a revolution?
How editors conduct peer review, how this process is evolving and whether we can trust the new players entering the field, the responsibilities of reviewers and how to recognise and reward all the effort put in to peer review. Maria Kowalczuk, in her post in the BioMed Central Blog, discusses the topics discussed by the panel and the audience of the "Peer review - the nuts and bolts" session at the EuroScience Open Forum (ESOF) in Manchester, UK.
The blog post says (quote): Transparency was put forward as a way of building trust and overcoming bias. Open peer review, publishing reviewer reports and increased transparency and accountability of the peer review process help to open up the 'black box' and also provide great learning tools for new reviewers. The process of peer review needs careful management in order to work properly, and any innovations should be tested and changes to the process should be based on evidence. I spoke about the open access journal Research Integrity and Peer Review which aims to stimulate and bring together research into this area.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. What Is SocArXiv?
A new "papers service" for social science content was recently launched and is capitalising on concerns over the sale of a long time preprint server by a commercial publisher. While the timing might be right, the set up looks a little hasty, says Angela Cochran, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): On the subject of whether anyone at SocArXiv is checking material before it is posted, the answer is no - not at this time. Okay, but the ingestion process does seem to indicate that there are human beings involved. I submitted a paper, which is done entirely by email. The requirements for the email are to include the title of the paper in the subject line and then the abstract in the body with the paper attached. In my profile, my affiliation information was parsed from the email signature line and the paper. An affiliation is not a required element of the submission email. It is possible that there is an automated ingestion process pulling these things into the system but that seems unlikely given that the affiliation was not a requirement in the email and that is the one that was used to create my account.…………… (unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. The short-form content resurgence
The Kindle platform certainly launched the ebook revolution but it is interesting that it didn’t halt short-form content momentum. In his post in the Digital Content Strategies Blog, Joe Wikert argues that info snacking is more popular than ever before and, ironically, that popularity is largely driven by Bezos' own company, Amazon.
The blog post says (quote): Short-form content success is all around us. Amazon launched Kindle Singles several years ago and the program has grown to more than 2,000 titles today. A few days ago they announced a program called Singles Classics where they’re breathing new life into older short-form evergreen content from the pre-digital era. And earlier this month they launched a short-form initiative within one of their audio subsidiaries called Audible Channels. All of this simply reflects the fact that we’re all pressed for time but we still want to consume content. Sure, there’s nothing quite like fully immersing yourself in a long book written by a wonderful storyteller. But these short-form services are simply addressing our craving to be hyper-efficient, aware of the latest trends in our jobs/careers and always up-to-the-date on worldly news.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply