Blogs selected for Week February 24 to March 1, 2020 -



1. New Chinese Policy Could Reshape Global STM Publishing

The new Chinese policy states that publication of papers will only be used as a main evaluation indicator for basic science and technology research, and not for applied research and technological development. This removes the publication burden from clinicians and engineers and others working in more applied areas. For the basic researchers, a “representative works” system will be used. Under this system, only a limited number of a researcher’s or an institution’s most important papers count. No less than one third of the representative papers must be published in domestic Chinese journals.

The full entry can be read: Here.

2. As academic writing becomes increasingly standardised what counts as an interesting paper?

Academic writing is often criticised for its tendency to be arid and unengaging, but what makes a paper interesting? Whilst there is always an intangible element to the quality of being interesting, Manuel Goyanes draws on a study of journal editors in the field of communication studies to outline five dimensions that contribute to a paper being interesting and hence influential. Social scientists produce interesting and influential studies. The dominant view in academia is that research is a quest for truth and thus, a research paper becomes influential if it is regarded as true. However, like other occupations, research is a matter of craft.

The full entry can be read: Here.

3. Guest Post — An Open Agenda: European Funder Approaches to Open Science

SPARC Europe launched a survey in 2019 of funders’ current policies regarding open science, exploring to what extent they reward and incentivise their researchers to adopt open practices. The survey, which was mainly sent out to the members of Science Europe, ALLEA and the EFC, targeted about 400 European funders, and garnered just over 60 responses from 29 countries. The response cohort includes important national funding agencies (almost 50 percent of the respondents), pan-European funders (the European Research Council and the European Commission), national and regional academies, foundations and philanthropic organisations, and research charities. Survey participants were self-selecting, and thus the responses are likely to be biased towards those funders who are favorably disposed towards open science.

The full entry can be read: Here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


sponsor links

For banner ads click here