1. Optical Illusions - Shifting to Citation Distributions Only Makes It Easier to Fool the Eye
A proposal to substitute graphs of citation distributions for impact factors introduces many problems the authors don't seem to have fully grasped, including unintentionally bolstering the importance of the very metric they seek to diminish. The recent proposal from a group of high-profile editors to downplay or eliminate mention of the dastardly impact factor and replace this with other metrics, mainly a distribution chart of citations, raises some interesting issues, notes Kent Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Showing a distribution is unlikely to shift the psychology of authors or tenure committees. In fact, a hard number, even to three decimal places, is much less prone to distortion than a distribution, which can be squeezed, resized, and subtly given false-equivalency with other distributions. Getting the data for these distributions would add work and expense to a system already dealing with the workload and complexity of supporting a lot of steps and processes. It would also mean paying to get data from commercial entities that have assembled and curated these data - namely, the recently transacted Thomson-Reuters, and Elsevier (Scopus). Small journals may not have the means to produce these charts, so this proposal could reinforce industry consolidation and commercial interests……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Peer Review Week 2016 #RecognizeReview
Peer Review Week is back! After a successful first year, planning for Peer Review Week 2016 is in full swing. In her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Alice Meadows gives an outline of the week focusing on Recognition for Review.
The blog post says (quote): This global event celebrates the essential role that peer review plays in maintaining scientific quality, bringing together individuals, institutions, and organisations committed to sharing the central message that good peer review - whatever shape or form it might take - is critical to scholarly communications. The theme of this year’s Peer Review Week is “Recognition for Review”. We want to explore all aspects of how those participating in review activity - publishing, grant review, conference submissions, promotion and tenure, and more - should be recognised for their contribution……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Cost-benefit analysis of the Teaching Excellence Framework
As the Higher Education and Research Bill gets its second reading in the House of Commons, Dorothy Bishop, in her post in The Impact Blog, revisits the costs and benefits of one of its primary components, the Teaching Excellence Framework. Based on the government's own analysis, the system is designed to separate winners and losers with potentially devastating effects for the losers. The outcome will depend crucially on two factors: the rate of inflation and the rate of increase in students.
The blog post says (quote): The government's new Higher Education and Research Bill gets its second reading. One complaint is that it has been rushed in without adequate scrutiny of some key components. I was interested, therefore, to discover, that a Detailed Impact Assessment was published in June, specifically to look at the costs and benefits of the various components of the Bill. What I found was quite shocking: we were being told that the financial benefits of the new Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) vastly outweighed its costs - yet look in detail and this is all smoke and mirrors……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Journal behaviour encouraging 'questionable research practices'
Social science journal editors are asking scholars to produce "impossible results" and creating an environment that encourages "questionable research practices", according to two academics who have studied the "grey zone" between ethical and unethical research. In her post in the Times Higher Education Blog, Ellie Bothwell discusses a recently released paper "The grey zone: questionable research practices in the business school".
The blog post says (quote): The study found three main explanations for questionable research practices: insufficient methodological training of scholars; pressures and incentives to publish; and demands and expectations of journals. While the research was based on interviews with 72 business school scholars, who specialise in leadership studies and are based in the UK, Europe, North America and Australasia, Dr Spoelstra said that "ndications" from other studies suggest that the issues found in the paper occur across the social sciences. Dr Butler said that while retractions of papers from journals are usually "high profile cases of misconduct, often involving clear cut cases of plagiarism, falsification or fabrication", it is more common for "the distinction between ethical and unethical or permitted and not permitted" to be "much more murky" and "more contested” ……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Can blog posts be used as peer reviews?
There are many amazing blogs and bloggers out there that provide critical comments, context, and feedback on the ‘formally published’ research literature. One problem with these though is that they are often divorced from the papers themselves, perhaps lost on obscure websites, or not hitting the right target audience, notes Jon Tennant, in his post in the ScienceOpen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): If we start to consider blog posts as peer review, then we might take another step towards ‘un-bundling’ the value of the modern peer reviewed journal. If you have an editorially controlled thematic collection, with pre-prints, and overlayed peer review from the blogosphere, then there is really very little left that is required to maximise the value of that research. And all for almost zero cost too! Modern bloggers can build a following and influence others through the act of producing consistently high quality content, complete with references and sound arguments. They don’t need journals and papers to publish their work, or for credibility. But journals and papers could use them to greatly enhance their content through that additional layer of post-publication peer review……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
6. Putting On Your Best Researcher Face
Which publications best reflect your research achievements? And would you use different evidence to highlight your academic impact and your wider societal and economic impact? Jonathan Adams, in his post in the Digital Science Blog, discusses a recent HEFCE report, which claims to be the first analysis to cover this material and tackle these questions .
The blog post says (quote): With the Research Excellence Framework (REF2014), we have a UK database that captures researcher choices in complementary assessments where the focus is on both traditional academic excellence plus an entirely new perspective created by references to underpinning research included in case studies of wider research impact. Add to this the publications selected by researchers in RAEs between 1988 and 2013 and the available data add up to 921,254 submitted outputs and 36,244 case study references across 25 years and five assessment cycles……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply